Court Opinion

ID: 4313077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-18 07:00:24.628163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:43.880863
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-1799

JAMES TYLER,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

AMTRAK,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01666-PJM)

Submitted: September 13, 2018                               Decided: September 17, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Kaiser H. Chowdhry, William J. Delany, MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Washington, D.C. for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James Tyler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen

his case. 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 (2007).

       The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 24, 2016. The notice

of appeal was filed on July 12, 2018. Because Tyler 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