John Stritzinger v. Brian Moynihan , 692 F. App'x 156 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1161
JOHN S. STRITZINGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN MOYNIHAN, Bank of America; KATHRYN RUEMELLER, Whitehouse;
LOWELL MCADAM, Verizon; KATHERINE WRIGHT; UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY-SC; US SUPREME COURT CLERK; SUPPLY CHAIN
PARTNERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-04447-TLW)
Submitted: June 22, 2017 Decided: June 26, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John S. Stritzinger seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his complaint for failing to comply with a
court order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal
must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 May 27, 2016. The notice
of appeal was filed on February 2, 2017. Because Stritzinger 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, deny Stritzinger’s pending motions, and 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