AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff-Appellee, Kathy Miller, was involved in a legal dispute with the Defendant-Appellant, Kimberly S. Elkins. Elkins attempted to file an appeal de novo to the district court but was dismissed due to the untimeliness of her notice of appeal. Elkins claimed that her late notice should be excused due to excusable neglect, suggesting it might have been caused by court error involving the clerk of the magistrate court (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the late notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect and suggested that it might have been the result of court error involving the clerk of the magistrate court (paras 1-2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant-Appellant's late notice of appeal due to alleged excusable neglect should be excused.
• Whether the untimely notice of appeal was the result of court error involving the clerk of the magistrate court.

Disposition

• The district court's order dismissing Elkins’ appeal de novo was affirmed (para 6).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep and Zachary A. Ives concurring. The court found that excusable neglect does not provide a basis to overlook the jurisdictional problem created by an untimely notice of appeal. Despite Elkins' claims, the evidence presented did not establish that the clerks at the magistrate court misinformed her regarding the necessity of posting a supersedeas bond to file her notice of appeal. The court emphasized that only circumstances such as "error on the part of the court" could excuse a late-filed notice of appeal. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on remand and found that Elkins’ untimely appeal did not result from court error. Elkins' subsequent request to submit additional evidence directly to the Court of Appeals was denied, as the court reiterated its inability to receive evidence or make factual findings based on a review of any evidence. Elkins' assertions that the district court's findings were erroneous and biased were not substantiated with specific explanations or evidence that could alter the outcome of the appeal. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Elkins' appeal de novo due to the absence of court error that resulted in the late filing of her notice of appeal (paras 1-6).