Earl Gordon v. Greater Washington Orthopaedic

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-02429-DKC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999571838]. Mailed to: Appellant. [14-2312]

Appeal: 14-2312

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2312

EARL STEWART GORDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GREATER WASHINGTON ORTHOPAEDIC GROUP, P.A.; DISTRICT COURT
OF MARYLAND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY; THE HEALTH CLAIM
ARBITRATION OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-02429-DKC)

Submitted:

April 23, 2015

Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Earl Stewart Gordon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2312

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Earl Stewart Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing without prejudice his civil action and denying
his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration.

We

dismiss in part and affirm in part.
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. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
notice

of

appeal

requirement.”

in

Bowles

a

“The timely filing of a

case

is

Russell,

v.

civil

551

U.S.

a

jurisdictional

205,

214

(2007).

Because Gordon filed his appeal more than thirty days after the
entry
without

of

the

district

prejudice,

court’s

and

failed

order
to

dismissing

obtain

an

his

action

extension

or

reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of this
order as untimely.
Gordon’s

notice

of

appeal

denying his Rule 60(b) motion.
find no reversible error.

was

timely

as

to

the

order

We have reviewed the record and

Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion for the reasons stated
by the district court.

Gordon v. Greater Washington Orthopaedic

Group, P.A., No. 8:14-cv-02429-DKC (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2014).

2

We

Appeal: 14-2312

Doc: 9

dispense

Filed: 04/27/2015

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

3