Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02048/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Boos
Appellee
City of Wheeling, West Virginia
Appellee
Michael Petros
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

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. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Parties are 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. Because Petros

failed to file a timely notice of appeal 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. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Petros’ informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has 

forfeited appellate review of this order. See Williams v. Giant 

Appeal: 16-2048 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
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

Appeal: 16-2048 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pg: 3 of 3