Cargyle B. Solomon v. Herman C. Dawson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-01951-PWG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999303133]. Mailed to: Cargyle Solomon. [13-2498]

Appeal: 13-2498

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2498

CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HERMAN C.
Maryland,

DAWSON,

Circuit

Court

Judge,

Upper

Marlboro

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13cv-01951-PWG)

Submitted:

February 20, 2014

Decided:

February 25, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cargyle Brown Solomon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2498

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Cargyle
court’s

order

Brown

denying

Solomon

seeks

to

reconsideration

appeal

of

the

its

district

dismissal

Solomon’s complaint for failing to state a claim.

of

We 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).

“[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

September

3,

2013.

December 12, 2013.

The

notice

of

appeal

was

filed

on

Because Solomon failed to file a timely

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

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

2