Sukit Kumvachirapitag v. Bill Gate

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999280490-2], denying Motion for other relief [999276944-2], denying Motion for other relief [999275385-2], denying Motion for other relief [999274318-2], denying Motion for other relief [999272296-2], denying Motion for other relief [999269244-2], denying Motion for other relief [999267750-2], denying Motion for other relief [999266934-2], denying Motion for other relief [999266931-2], denying Motion for other relief [999266928-2], denying Motion for other relief [999264106-2], denying Motion for other relief [999256338-2], denying Motion for other relief [999252300-2], denying Motion for other relief [999244727-2], denying Motion for other relief [999240760-2] Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00117-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999282088]. Mailed to: Kumvachirapitag. [13-2077]

Appeal: 13-2077

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2077

SUKIT N. KUMVACHIRAPITAG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BILL GATES; STEVE BALLMER; TIM COOK; BANK OF AMERICA;
CORPORATIONS; GLOBAL BANKING; GLOBAL FINANCIAL; GLOBAL
DEBTS; NATIONAL DEBTS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00117-FL)

Submitted:

January 21, 2014

Decided: January 23, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sukit N. Kumvachirapitag, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2077

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Sukit N. Kumvachirapitag seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

dismissing

the

amended

complaint

after

Kumvachirapitag failed to comply with the district court’s order
directing

that

a

particularized

complaint

be

filed.

Kumvachirapitag has also filed several motions with this court.
We deny the pending motions and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the 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).

When the United

States or its officer or agency is a party, and unless the
district court extends or reopens the appeal period, the notice
of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry
of the district court’s final judgment or order.
P. 4(a)(1)(B).

Fed. R. App.

“[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).
Kumvachirapitag filed the notice of appeal sixty-two
days after the district court’s dismissal order was entered on
the docket.

Because Kumvachirapitag failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the
2

Appeal: 13-2077

Doc: 33

appeal

period,

appeal.
legal
before

Filed: 01/23/2014

we

deny

the

Pg: 3 of 3

pending

motions

and

dismiss

the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3