William Bond v. Kenneth Blum, Sr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999498573-2]; denying Motion to amend/correct [999532428-2]; denying Motion to recuse and transfer [999532429-2]. Originating case number: 1:07-cv-01385-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999588697]. Mailed to: William Bond. [14-2333]

Appeal: 14-2333

Doc: 18

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2333

WILLIAM C. BOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH BLUM, SR.; ERLENE BLUM; ALAN S. COHN; ROBIN COHN;
KENNETH BLUM, JR.; DUDLEY F. B. HODGSON; WILLIAM H. SLAVIN;
WILLIAM A. MCDANIEL, JR.; CAROLINE A. GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL,
BENNETT & GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL & GRIFFIN; PAUL A. DORF;
ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, LLC; GERARD P. MARTIN;
MIRIAM PESSIN; RENT-A-WRECK OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:07-cv-01385-JFM)

Submitted:

May 11, 2015

Decided:

May 22, 2015

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2333

Doc: 18

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William
court’s

C.

May

Judgment

Bond

13,

2014

Motion

Expedition

has

to

Request,”

noted

order

appeal

denying

Vacate
July

an

Orders,

2,

2014

from

his

the

district

self-styled

Remand

order

&

“Post

Recuse

denying

his

with
motion

seeking reconsideration of the May 13 order and an evidentiary
hearing,
“Motion

September
to

Stay

16,

Notice

2014
of

order

denying

Appeal,”

his

November

4,

self-styled
2014

order

denying his self-styled “Second (No. 2) Post Judgment Motion to
Vacate Orders, Remand, & Recuse with Expedition Request,” and
December 8, 2014 order granting his motion for extension of time
to appeal the September 16 order.

We dismiss the appeal of the

May 13 and July 2 orders for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice

of

appeal

was

not

timely

filed.

We

affirm

the

September 16, November 4, and December 8 orders.
Parties
district

are

court’s

accorded
final

30

days

judgment

or

after
order

the
to

entry

note

an

of

the

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 May 13 and July 2 orders were entered
on the docket on May 13, 2014 and July 2, 2014.
2

Bond’s notice

Appeal: 14-2333

Doc: 18

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

of appeal with respect to these orders was filed on December 16,
2014.

Because Bond failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal periods with
respect to these orders, we dismiss the appeal in part.
Turning to the September 16, November 4, and December 8
orders, we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in
the Appellant’s brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because Bond’s

informal brief does not challenge the December 8 order, Bond has
forfeited appellate review of that order.

With respect to the

September 16 and November 4 orders, we have reviewed the record
and

Bond’s

informal

brief

and

establish any reversible error.
leave

to

proceed

in

forma

conclude

that

he

fails

to

Accordingly, although we grant

pauperis,

we

affirm

those

orders.

Bond v. Blum, No. 1:07-cv-01385-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 16, Nov. 4 &
Dec. 8, 2014).

We deny as moot Bond’s motion to extend the time

for filing his informal brief and deny his motions to amend or
correct recusal order and to recuse and transfer.

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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3