UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2085
WILLIAM A. TACCINO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ALLEGANY COUNTY GOVERNMENT; JAMES J. STAKEM, President;
ROBERT M. HUTCHESON, Commissioner; DALE R. LEWIS,
Commissioner; JERRY W. MICHAEL, Code Enforcer; DAVID A.
EBERLY, Director; GARY E. MOORE, Chief; WILLIAM M. RUDD,
Attorney; BARRY R. LEVINE, Ass’t Attorney; TRI-COUNTY
COUNCIL; MARC C. MALEC, Director; LAVALE CIVIC IMPROVEMENT;
PAUL J. YOCKUS, President; JOHN M. MILLER, P.R. Est. of E.
Miller; KENNETH R. BUTCH JOY, Jiffy Lube; CUMBERLAND
BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.; DAVID N. AYDELOTTE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:09-cv-02921-WDQ)
Submitted: May 18, 2011 Decided: May 25, 2011
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William A. Taccino, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Bock Karpinski,
KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Michele
Zahner Blumenfeld, Robert Lawrence Ferguson, Jr., FERGUSON,
SCHETELICH & BALLEW, PA, Baltimore; Jeffrey Schuyler Getty,
James Matthew Gilmore, GEPPERT, MCMULLEN, PAYE & GETTY,
Cumberland, Maryland; Daniel P. Doty, ASTRACHAN GUNST AND THOMAS
PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William A. Taccino seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief in this civil action. We 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). “[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 August 11, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on
September 13, 2010. Because Taccino failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
3