Opinion

Cargyle Solomon v. Herman Dawson

  • 563 F. App'x 229
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Mar 27, 2014
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Gregory, Keenan, Per Curiam, Wynn
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.2%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2525

CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HERMAN C. DAWSON, Circuit Court Judge,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13-

cv-01953-PWG)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cargyle Brown Solomon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cargyle Brown Solomon seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders dismissing her complaint, denying her motion for

reconsideration, and partially granting her motion to seal. 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 last of the district court’s orders that Solomon

challenges was entered on the docket on September 3, 2013. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). The notice of appeal was filed

on December 12, 2013. Because Solomon failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Solomon’s pending

motions to stay certain foreclosure proceedings and to seal

court records. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.