Filed: May 09, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1706 NEIL F. LETREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, and KEVIN L. CHAPPLE, Appellant, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03361-PX) Submitted: April 30, 2019
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1706 NEIL F. LETREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, and KEVIN L. CHAPPLE, Appellant, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03361-PX) Submitted: April 30, 2019 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1706
NEIL F. LETREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
KEVIN L. CHAPPLE,
Appellant,
v.
TRANS UNION, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03361-PX)
Submitted: April 30, 2019 Decided: May 9, 2019
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin L. Chapple, LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN L. CHAPPLE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellants. Robert J. Schuckit, Katherine E. Carlton Robinson, SCHUCKIT &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., Zionsville, Indiana, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Neil F. Letren appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment
in favor of Trans Union, LLC, on his claims of violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1681 to 1681x (West 2009 & Supp. 2018) (2012), and Letren and
his former attorney, Kevin L. Chapple, appeal from the district court’s orders granting
Trans Union’s motion for sanctions and imposing sanctions on Letren and Chapple,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and denying their motion to alter or amend that order.
We dismiss Letren’s appeal from the order granting summary judgment in favor of
Trans Union for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 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’s order was entered on the docket on February 2, 2017. The
notice of appeal was filed on June 27, 2018. Because Letren failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this
portion of the appeal.
Letren and Chapple appeal from the district court order imposing sanctions in the
amount of $200 against Letren and $4000 against Chapple and denying their motion to
alter or amend that order. We have reviewed the record and arguments made by the
parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the sanctions order for the
3
reasons stated by the district court. Letren v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 8:15-cv-03361-PX
(D. Md. Sept. 15, 2017). We note that, by failing to address in their opening brief the
order denying their motion to alter or amend, Letren and Chapple have waived review of
that order. See Canady v. Crestar Mortgage Corp.,
109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir. 1997).
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
4