UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2312
EARL STEWART GORDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GREATER WASHINGTON ORTHOPAEDIC GROUP, P.A.; DISTRICT COURT
OF MARYLAND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY; THE HEALTH CLAIM
ARBITRATION OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-02429-DKC)
Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Earl Stewart Gordon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Earl Stewart Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing without prejudice his civil action and denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We
dismiss in part and affirm in part.
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. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “The timely filing of a
notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
Because Gordon filed his appeal more than thirty days after the
entry of the district court’s order dismissing his action
without prejudice, and failed to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of this
order as untimely.
Gordon’s notice of appeal was timely as to the order
denying his Rule 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion for the reasons stated
by the district court. Gordon v. Greater Washington Orthopaedic
Group, P.A., No. 8:14-cv-02429-DKC (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2014). We
2
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
3