Case Name: Cargyle Brown SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herman C. DAWSON, Circuit Court Judge, Upper Marlboro Maryland, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-25
Citations: 556 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 13-2498
Parties: Cargyle Brown SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herman C. DAWSON, Circuit Court Judge, Upper Marlboro Maryland, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 556
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Cargyle Brown SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herman C. DAWSON, Circuit Court Judge, Upper Marlboro Maryland, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-2498.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 20, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2014.
Cargyle Brown Solomon, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cargyle Brown Solomon seeks to appeal the district court's order denying reconsideration of its dismissal of Solomon's complaint for failing to state a claim. 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 September 3, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on December 12, 2013. Because Solomon 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.