Sukit Kumvachirapitag v. Bill Gates ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-2077
    SUKIT N. KUMVACHIRAPITAG,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    BILL GATES; STEVE BALLMER; TIM COOK; BANK OF AMERICA;
    CORPORATIONS; GLOBAL BANKING; GLOBAL FINANCIAL; GLOBAL
    DEBTS; NATIONAL DEBTS,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (7:13-cv-00117-FL)
    Submitted:   January 21, 2014             Decided: January 23, 2014
    Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sukit N. Kumvachirapitag, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Sukit N. Kumvachirapitag seeks to appeal the district
    court’s     order     dismissing   the   amended    complaint    after
    Kumvachirapitag failed to comply with the district court’s order
    directing     that      a   particularized   complaint    be    filed.
    Kumvachirapitag has also filed several motions with this court.
    We deny the pending motions and 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).         When the United
    States or its officer or agency is a party, and unless the
    district court extends or reopens the appeal period, the notice
    of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry
    of the district court’s final judgment or order.         Fed. R. App.
    P. 4(a)(1)(B).       “[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).
    Kumvachirapitag filed the notice of appeal sixty-two
    days after the district court’s dismissal order was entered on
    the docket.      Because Kumvachirapitag failed to file a timely
    notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the
    2
    appeal    period,   we   deny    the   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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-2077

Judges: Motz, Keenan, Thacker

Filed Date: 1/23/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024