Kenneth Smith v. Patrick Donahoe ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1301
KENNETH G. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal
Service; DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, Director, National Institute
of Health; ARNE DUNCAN, Secretary of Education, U.S.
Department of Education,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-1494
KENNETH G. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal
Service; DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, Director, National Institute
of Health; ARNE DUNCAN, Secretary of Education, U.S.
Department of Education,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00790-JCC-TRJ)
Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 11, 2013
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
No. 13-1301 affirmed; No. 13-1494 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Kenneth G. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Reynolds Wilson,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In Case No. 13-1301, Kenneth G. Smith appeals the
district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1), (6) & 56(a). We have carefully reviewed the record
and Smith’s informal briefs and find no legal or factual basis
to reverse the district court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm.
In Case No. 13-1494, Smith appeals the district
court’s orders denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment
and denying as moot his motion to strike. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). 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 sixty
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 orders were entered on the docket
on January 23, 2013, and January 31, 2013, respectively. The
3
notice of appeal was filed on April 10, 2013. Because Smith
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal. Smith’s motions for settlement and to strike this
court’s prior order are denied. 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.
No. 13-1301 AFFIRMED
No. 13-1494 DISMISSED
4