Katherine B. Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of Maryland , 703 F. App'x 212 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-1796
    KATHERINE B. ROBINSON; DANA B. WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    CHESAPEAKE BANK OF MARYLAND; PROCTOR FINANCIAL, INC.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:16-cv-04119-CCB)
    Submitted: November 21, 2017                                Decided: November 27, 2017
    Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Katherine B. Robinson, Dana B. Williams, Appellants Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s February 2017 order dismissing
    without prejudice their civil complaint against Defendants after Appellants failed to
    comply with the district court’s previous order directing that the complaint be
    supplemented. However, Appellants previously appealed the district court’s dismissal
    order to this court, and we dismissed that appeal. See Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of
    Md., 691 F. App’x 782 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 17-1217). Because we have previously
    dismissed an appeal of this order, and since Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed
    beyond the 30-day appeal period, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that in civil
    cases in which the United States is a not party, parties are accorded 30 days after the
    entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal), we dismiss this
    appeal as duplicative and untimely. * 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 in the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    *
    To the extent that the notice of appeal could be construed as attempting to
    challenge the district court’s February 21, 2017, return pleading order, the notice of
    appeal is untimely as to this order as well.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1796

Citation Numbers: 703 F. App'x 212

Judges: Wynn, Thacker, Hamilton

Filed Date: 11/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024