Filed: Sep. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1799 JAMES TYLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMTRAK, Defendant - Appellee.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1799 JAMES TYLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMTRAK, Defendant - Appellee.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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..
More
UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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