Michael Petros v. Paul Boo
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cv-00077-FPS. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Rosemary Humway-Warmuth & Michael Petros. [16-2048]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
PAUL BOOS; CITY OF WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:10-cv-00077-FPS)
March 3, 2017
March 21, 2017
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
Michael Petros, Appellant Pro Se.
Rosemary Jennifer HumwayWarmuth, CITY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Michael Petros seeks to appeal two district court orders
applying a prefiling injunction and preventing him from filing
two new complaints.
Petros filed notices of appeal following
the entry of each order.
We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
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).
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
first district court order was entered on the docket on August
The notice of appeal challenging the August 8 order
was filed 36 days later, on September 13, 2016.
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this
portion of the appeal.
As to the second notice of appeal, which is timely as to
the district court’s November 16, 2016, order, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has
forfeited appellate review of this order.
See Williams v. Giant
Pg: 3 of 3
Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).
we affirm as to this order.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?