UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1487
SAMUEL H. MWABIRA-SIMERA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THOMPSON HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLP; JOHN STEVENSON,
Supervisor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-00848-WMN; 1:11-cv-02989-WMN)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel H. Mwabira-Simera, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick
Dowd, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel H. Mwabira-Simera filed a notice of appeal
concerning two cases consolidated in the district court. The
notice of appeal does not identify what district court order he
wishes to appeal; however, because the notice of appeal is
untimely as to any and all orders below, we dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (setting
out time limits for noting appeal in civil cases not involving
the United States or its employees or agencies); see also Fed.
R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (stating notice of appeal must “designate
the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed”).
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 most recent district court order was entered on
the district court docket in August 2012. The notice of appeal
was filed on April 12, 2013. Because Mwabira-Simera failed to
file a timely notice of appeal, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3