Court Opinion

ID: 4569457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-24 19:00:59.139698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:23.415019
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-1615

DAVID M. SHIPP,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

ERIC HARGAN, Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:17-cv-03365-PX)

Submitted: September 22, 2020                               Decided: September 24, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Shipp, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       David M. Shipp seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to Defendant on Shipp’s civil complaint. 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 in a civil case, the notice

of appeal must be filed no more than 60 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 entered its order on March 27, 2020. Shipp filed his first notice

of appeal on June 1, 2020. Because Shipp 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

                                             2