UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2298
PEPI SCHAFLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, Martin J. Glynn, CEO; SCOTT D. MILLER;
PHILLIPS LYTLE; DAVID J. MACNAMARA, Managing Partner;
MICHAEL B. POWERS, Phillips Lytle; M & T BANK, Robert E.
Sadler, Jr., CEO; JAMES H. FRENCH, French & Lyon,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:09-cv-01758-AW)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 4, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Pepi Schafler, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Charles McPhee, PHILLIPS
LYTLE LLP, Buffalo, New York; Alexander Craig Vincent, SHULMAN,
ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, PA, Potomac, Maryland; Heather R.
Beygo, Kimberly Lynn Limbrick, CROSSWHITE LIMBRICK & SINCLAIR,
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Kevin Miles Kearney, HODGSON RUSS,
LLP, Buffalo, New York, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Pepi Schafler appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to
the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because Schafler’s informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the district court’s disposition, Schafler has
forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.
Schafler also seeks to appeal the district court’s
order imposing a pre-filing injunction and awarding Defendants
attorneys’ fees. ∗ We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal for that order 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). “[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 order was entered on the docket
on November 9, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on December
∗
The amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded has yet to be
determined by the district court.
3
16, 2009. Because Schafler failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal as to this order. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4