UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2048
MICHAEL PETROS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PAUL BOOS; CITY OF WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:10-cv-00077-FPS)
Submitted: March 3, 2017 Decided: March 21, 2017
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Michael Petros, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Jennifer Humway-
Warmuth, CITY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Petros seeks to appeal two district court orders
applying a prefiling injunction and preventing him from filing
two new complaints. Petros filed notices of appeal following
the entry of each order. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
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
first district court order was entered on the docket on August
8, 2016. The notice of appeal challenging the August 8 order
was filed 36 days later, on September 13, 2016. Because Petros
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this
portion of the appeal.
As to the second notice of appeal, which is timely as to
the district court’s November 16, 2016, order, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Petros’ informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has
forfeited appellate review of this order. See Williams v. Giant
2
Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,
we affirm as to this order.
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3