Court Opinion

ID: 9945458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:00:42.342551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:30.041046
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1535      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/26/2024     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1535

        SIDDHANTH SHARMA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official capacity as Chair of the North Carolina State
        Board of Elections; STELLA ANDERSON, in her official capacity as a member of
        the North Carolina State Board of Elections; JEFF CARMON, in his official capacity
        as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; STACY EGGERS, IV,
        in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections;
        TOMMY TUCKER, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State
        Board of Elections; KAREN BRINSON BELL, in her official capacity as the
        Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; NORTH
        CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00059-BO)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                  Decided: February 26, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1535      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/26/2024    Pg: 2 of 4

        Siddhanth Sharma, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1535       Doc: 13        Filed: 02/26/2024     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

                Siddhanth Sharma seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his

        complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We dismiss in part and affirm in

        part.

                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 dismissal order on May 16, 2022. Sharma filed the

        notice of appeal on May 15, 2023. Because Sharma failed to file a timely notice of appeal

        or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, * we dismiss the appeal as to

        the dismissal order.

                Turning to the district court’s denial of Sharma’s Rule 60(b) motion, from which

        Sharma timely appealed, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error.

        Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. Sharma v. Circosta, No. 5:22-cv-00059-

        BO (E.D.N.C. filed May 11, 2023 & entered May 12, 2023). We deny Sharma’s motions

        for injunctive relief and to consolidate. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

                Sharma’s Rule 60(b) motion did not toll the appeal period because it was not filed
                *

        within 28 days of the entry of the underlying dismissal order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1535     Doc: 13         Filed: 02/26/2024   Pg: 4 of 4

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                           DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                           AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                   4