# Cargyle Solomon v. Herman Dawson

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 27, 2014 · 563 F. App'x 229

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2658111

## Case

- **Full name:** Cargyle Brown SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herman C. DAWSON, Circuit Court Judge, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 27, 2014
- **Citations:** 563 F. App'x 229
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Keenan, Per Curiam, Wynn
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2658111

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2658111. Public record. Not legal advice.