Cargyle Solomon v. Shareese Kess-Lewi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to transfer [999350905-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-02632-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999406947]. Mailed to: Cargyle Solomon. [14-1310]

Appeal: 14-1310

Doc: 6

Filed: 07/31/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1310

CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHAREESE KESS-LEWIS; RANDOLPH T. LEWIS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02632-JKB)

Submitted:

July 29, 2014

Decided: July 31, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cargyle Brown Solomon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1310

Doc: 6

Filed: 07/31/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Cargyle

Brown

Solomon

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus
and

denying

her

motion

for

reconsideration.

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 denying reconsideration was
entered on the docket on January 31, 2014.
was filed on April 2, 2014.

The notice of appeal

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.
Solomon’s motion to transfer.

We deny as moot

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