Donald Burrell v. 911 Restoration Franchise, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-02278-JKB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000342293]. [18-1055]

Appeal: 18-1055

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/03/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1055

DONALD BURRELL;
BALTIMORE, INC.,

APRIL

BURRELL;

911

RESTORATION

OF

Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
911 RESTORATION FRANCHISE, INC.; IDAN SHPIZEAR; PELEG LINDENBERG;
SHAY KALMANOVICH,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-02278-JKB)

Submitted: July 19, 2018

Decided: August 3, 2018

Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Martin Rifkin, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY M. RIFKIN, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellants. James E. Dickerman, ECCLESTON AND WOLF, P.C., Hanover, Maryland,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1055

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/03/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order dismissing their case and
compelling arbitration. 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 was entered on the docket on November 17, 2017. The
notice of appeal was filed on December 26, 2017. Because Appellants failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.

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