Court Opinion

ID: 2745233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-23 19:03:18.045304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:12:31.545654
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-1600

L. RUTHER,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA,

                Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00486-AJT-TRJ)

Submitted:   October 21, 2014             Decided:   October 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Ruther, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              L. Ruther seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his civil action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012).           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 May 8, 2014.         The notice of appeal was filed on June 17,

2014.   Because Ruther 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