Sukit Kumvachirapitag v. Bill Gates

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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