Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0071-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sukit N. KUMVACHIRAPITAG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill GATES; Steve Ballmer; Tim Cook; Bank of America; Corporations; Global Banking; Global Financial; Global Debts; National Debts, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-2077.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 21, 2014.
    Decided: Jan. 23, 2014.
    Sukit N. Kumvachirapitag, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sukit N. Kumvachirapitag seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing the amended complaint after Kumvaehi-rapitag failed to comply with the district court’s order directing that a particularized complaint be filed. Kumvachirapitag has also filed several motions with this court. We deny the pending motions and 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). When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, and unless the district court extends or reopens the appeal period, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). “[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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

Kumvachirapitag filed the notice of appeal sixty-two days after the district court’s dismissal order was entered on the docket. Because Kumvachirapitag failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny the pending motions and 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.