Gilchrist v. HUD Housing Inspector ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1641
GEORGIA L. GILCHRIST,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
MARIKA G. MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
HUD HOUSING INSPECTOR; INSPECTOR DOWNING; INSPECTOR MARYLON
BOND; ANTHONEY WILLIAM FLETCHER; ERICA DEAN; JACK B.
JOHNSON,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:09-
cv-00469-RWT)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Georgia L. Gilchrist, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Georgia Gilchrist seeks to appeal the district court’s
dismissal of her civil action without prejudice and the denial
or her motions to reopen the case. 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 dismissal order was entered on
the docket on April 20, 2009, and the court denied the motions
to reopen on July 22 and November 4, 2009. The notice of appeal
was filed on June 7, 2010. Because Gilchrist failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny
Gilchrist’s motions to amend the caption and to appoint counsel
and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3