Case ID: f-appx_431/html/0250-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William A. TACCINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLEGANY COUNTY GOVERNMENT; James J. Stakem, President; Robert M. Hutcheson, Commissioner; Dale R. Lewis, Commissioner; Jerry W. Michael, Code Enforcer; David A. Eberly, Director; Gary E. Moore, Chief; William M. Rudd, Attorney; Barry R. Levine, Ass’t Attorney; Tri-County Council; Marc C. Malec, Director; Lavale Civic Improvement; Paul J. Yockus, President; John M. Miller, P.R. Est. of E. Miller; Kenneth R. Butch Joy, Jiffy Lube; Cumberland Broadcasting Company, Inc.; David N. Aydelotte, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-2085.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 18, 2011.
    Decided: May 25, 2011.
    William A. Taccino, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Bock Karpinski, Karpinski, Colaresi & Karp, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Michele Zahner Blumenfeld, Robert Lawrence Ferguson, Jr., Ferguson, Schetelich & Ballew, PA, Baltimore; Jeffrey Schuyler Getty, James Matthew Gilmore, Geppert, Mcmullen, Paye & Getty, Cumberland, Maryland; Daniel P. Doty, Astrachan Gunst and Thomas PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William A. Taccino seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief in this civil action. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 11, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on September 13, 2010. Because Taccino failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.