# Pamela Bond v. Maryland Board of Nursing

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 26, 2015 · 590 F. App'x 253

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2773265

## Case

- **Full name:** Pamela BOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND BOARD OF NURSING; Future Care, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 26, 2015
- **Citations:** 590 F. App'x 253
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Shedd, Keenan, Diaz
- **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/2773265

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1957

PAMELA BOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND BOARD OF NURSING; FUTURE CARE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00872-WMN)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pamela Sue Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Bruno DeFranco,
Douglas F. Gansler, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Baltimore, Maryland; Charles R. Bacharach, GORDON FEINBLATT LLC,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Pamela Bond seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Bond’s civil suit. 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 July 24, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on

September 11, 2014. Because Bond failed to file a timely notice

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

period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss

the appeal. We deny Bond’s motion to admit evidence. 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2773265. Public record. Not legal advice.