Troy Williams v. Tero Tek International, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-02752-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999137250]. Mailed to: T. Williams. [13-1440]

Appeal: 13-1440

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1440

TROY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TERO TEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; TERO TEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Corporate Headquarters,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-02752-JKB)

Submitted:

June 20, 2013

Decided:

June 25, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part,
curiam opinion.

and

affirmed

in

part

by

unpublished

per

Troy Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Rothschild, ANDERSON,
COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1440

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Troy

Williams

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting summary judgment to the defendant and its subsequent
order denying his motion to reopen. ∗

We dismiss the appeal of

the order granting summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal from that order was not timely
filed.

We affirm the denial of Williams’ motion to reopen.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends
the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

“[T]he timely

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.”
The

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
district

court’s

summary

judgment

entered on the docket on February 27, 2012.
appeal was filed on April 1, 2013.

order

was

The notice of

Because Williams failed to

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period we dismiss the appeal to the

∗

Williams’ informal brief states that he also appeals the
district court’s marginal order entered April 3, 2013, denying
his motion for reconsideration. Williams did not file a notice
of appeal of this order and it is therefore not properly before
this court.

2

Appeal: 13-1440

extent

Doc: 14

it

Filed: 06/25/2013

challenges

the

Pg: 3 of 3

district

court’s

summary

judgment

order.
Although Williams timely appealed the denial of his
motion to reopen, we find no abuse of discretion.

MLC Auto.,

LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3