Court Opinion

ID: 9929737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:00:52.406824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:47:05.778144
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1436      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1436

        NATALYA HAMPEL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        STATE OF MARYLAND; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; OFFICE ON
        AGING; RICHARD LEWIS, M.D.; DEBORAH SKILLMAN; UJNAI IMAIA, MD;
        SAFIYAH ARDAM SALMAN, MD; ASHLEY KIMBER, LCPC; PHIL LEMBO,
        LCSWC; MISS MONA; BRADLEY STOVER,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01115-SAG)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Natalya Tamara Hampel, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Anthony Damiano, SHAW,
        BARNES & DAMIANO, P.A., Hunt Valley, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1436      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Natalya Hampel seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint

        and denying reconsideration. 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 January 5, 2023. Hampel filed the

        notice of appeal on April 20, 2023. Because Hampel 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 Hampel’s motion for reconsideration, from

        which Hampel timely appealed, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible

        error. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. Hampel v. Maryland, No. 1:22-cv-

        01115-SAG (D. Md. Apr. 10, 2023). 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 IN PART,
                                                                               AFFIRMED IN PART

               *
                While Hampel filed a letter on February 8, 2023, that the district court construed
        as a motion for reconsideration, it 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).

                                                    2