UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2333
WILLIAM C. BOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH BLUM, SR.; ERLENE BLUM; ALAN S. COHN; ROBIN COHN;
KENNETH BLUM, JR.; DUDLEY F. B. HODGSON; WILLIAM H. SLAVIN;
WILLIAM A. MCDANIEL, JR.; CAROLINE A. GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL,
BENNETT & GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL & GRIFFIN; PAUL A. DORF;
ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, LLC; GERARD P. MARTIN;
MIRIAM PESSIN; RENT-A-WRECK OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:07-cv-01385-JFM)
Submitted: May 11, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William C. Bond has noted an appeal from the district
court’s May 13, 2014 order denying his self-styled “Post
Judgment Motion to Vacate Orders, Remand & Recuse with
Expedition Request,” July 2, 2014 order denying his motion
seeking reconsideration of the May 13 order and an evidentiary
hearing, September 16, 2014 order denying his self-styled
“Motion to Stay Notice of Appeal,” November 4, 2014 order
denying his self-styled “Second (No. 2) Post Judgment Motion to
Vacate Orders, Remand, & Recuse with Expedition Request,” and
December 8, 2014 order granting his motion for extension of time
to appeal the September 16 order. We dismiss the appeal of the
May 13 and July 2 orders for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed. We affirm the
September 16, November 4, and December 8 orders.
Parties are accorded 30 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 May 13 and July 2 orders were entered
on the docket on May 13, 2014 and July 2, 2014. Bond’s notice
2
of appeal with respect to these orders was filed on December 16,
2014. Because Bond failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal periods with
respect to these orders, we dismiss the appeal in part.
Turning to the September 16, November 4, and December 8
orders, we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in
the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bond’s
informal brief does not challenge the December 8 order, Bond has
forfeited appellate review of that order. With respect to the
September 16 and November 4 orders, we have reviewed the record
and Bond’s informal brief and conclude that he fails to
establish any reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm those orders.
Bond v. Blum, No. 1:07-cv-01385-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 16, Nov. 4 &
Dec. 8, 2014). We deny as moot Bond’s motion to extend the time
for filing his informal brief and deny his motions to amend or
correct recusal order and to recuse and transfer. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3