UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2300
ALPHONSO DUNBAR,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY; JOHN KUO; ARTHUR HOLMES, JR.; PETER V.R.
FRANCHOT; MARCUS L. BROWN; HENRY NORRIS; GARY D. MAYNARD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:13-cv-01589-DKC)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014
Before HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. *
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alphonso Dunbar, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*
This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
PER CURIAM:
Alphonso Dunbar seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his complaint without prejudice and denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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 denying Dunbar’s timely
filed Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on July 11,
2013. The notice of appeal was filed on October 23, 2013.
Because Dunbar 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