Troy Williams v. Tero Tek International, Inc. ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1440
TROY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TERO TEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; TERO TEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Corporate Headquarters,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-02752-JKB)
Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, and affirmed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Troy Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Rothschild, ANDERSON,
COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Williams appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the defendant and its subsequent
order denying his motion to reopen. ∗ We dismiss the appeal of
the order granting summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal from that order was not timely
filed. We affirm the denial of Williams’ motion to reopen.
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 summary judgment order was
entered on the docket on February 27, 2012. The notice of
appeal was filed on April 1, 2013. Because Williams failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period we dismiss the appeal to the
∗
Williams’ informal brief states that he also appeals the
district court’s marginal order entered April 3, 2013, denying
his motion for reconsideration. Williams did not file a notice
of appeal of this order and it is therefore not properly before
this court.
2
extent it challenges the district court’s summary judgment
order.
Although Williams timely appealed the denial of his
motion to reopen, we find no abuse of discretion. MLC Auto.,
LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3