Michael Petros v. Paul Boo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cv-00077-FPS. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000045863]. Mailed to: Rosemary Humway-Warmuth & Michael Petros. [16-2048]

Appeal: 16-2048

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2048

MICHAEL PETROS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
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)

Submitted:

March 3, 2017

Decided:

March 21, 2017

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Michael Petros, Appellant Pro Se.
Rosemary Jennifer HumwayWarmuth, CITY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2048

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
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.
Parties

are

We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

accorded

30

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

first district court order was entered on the docket on August
8, 2016.

The notice of appeal challenging the August 8 order

was filed 36 days later, on September 13, 2016.
failed

to

file

a

timely

notice

of

appeal

Because Petros

or

to

obtain

an

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.
Cir.

R.

34(b).

Because

Petros’

informal

brief

See 4th
does

not

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has
forfeited appellate review of this order.
2

See Williams v. Giant

Appeal: 16-2048

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/21/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly,

we affirm as to this order.
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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3