Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02211/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02211-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Board of Urology
Appellee
George Washington University
Appellee
John and Jane Does
Appellee
Kilpatrick Stockton
Appellee
Kirkland & Ellis
Appellee
Royce C. Lamberth
Appellee
Edward D. Plotzker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2211

EDWARD D. PLOTZKER, M.D.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief United States District Court Judge 

for the District of Columbia; AMERICAN BOARD OF UROLOGY, 

Incorporated; KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP; GEORGE WASHINGTON 

UNIVERSITY, d/b/a George Washington University Medical 

Center; KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP; JOHN AND JANE DOES,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00027-nkm-bwc)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward D. Plotzker, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, James Worth 

Draughn, Jr., KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., K. 

Lorraine Lord, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, Melissa

Wolf Riley, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia, Adam 

Howard Charnes, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellees. 

Appeal: 09-2211 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/24/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-2211 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/24/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Edward D. Plotzker, M.D., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss his 

various claims against them. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, 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), 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 October 22, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on October 

20, 2009. Because Plotzker 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 the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-2211 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/24/2010 Pg: 3 of 3