Steven Fleming v. Maryland National Capital Park

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-02769-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999130964]. Mailed to: Steven Fleming. [13-1510]

Appeal: 13-1510

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/17/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1510

STEVEN P. FLEMING,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK & PLANNING COMMISSION; PATTY
DARNEY,
Executive
Director;
WILLIAM
SPENCER,
Human
Resources Director; ADRIAN GARDENER, General Counsel,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:11-cv-02769-DKC)

Submitted:

June 13, 2013

Decided:

June 17, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven P. Fleming, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1510

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/17/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Steven
court’s

order

Paul

Fleming

denying

his

seeks

motion

employment discrimination case.
of

jurisdiction

because

the

to
to

appeal
reopen

the
his

district
Title

VII

We dismiss the appeal for lack

notice

of

appeal

was

not

timely

filed.
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.”

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

The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on March 15, 2013.
2013.

The notice of appeal was filed on April 18,

Because Fleming failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

2