UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1677
UNDER SEAL 1; UNDER SEAL 2,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNDER SEAL 3; UNDER SEAL 4; UNDER SEAL 5; UNDER SEAL 6;
UNDER SEAL 7; UNDER SEAL 8; UNDER SEAL 9; UNDER SEAL 10;
UNDER SEAL 11,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00153-RDB)
Submitted: November 22, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Under Seal 1 and Under Seal 2, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Under Seal 1 and Under Seal 2 seek to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing their 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 February 13, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on April 17, 2013. Because Appellants failed to file
a timely notice of appeal or to 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2