Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06771/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06771-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marian Fogan
Appellee
Michael Johnson
Appellant
Scott Moran
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6771

MICHAEL JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARIAN FOGAN; SCOTT MORAN,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:21-cv-02570-SAG)

Submitted: October 8, 2024 Decided: January 13, 2025

Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher A. Gozdor, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6771 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. We previously remanded this case for the 

limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine when Johnson filed his notice 

of appeal. We now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal 

was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 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 district court entered its order on June 27, 2023, and the appeal period expired 

on July 27, 2023. Johnson filed the notice of appeal on August 2, 2023. Because Johnson

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Johnson’s motion for a new trial.

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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6771 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 2