UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2127
BRIAN M. BISHOP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
7-ELEVEN, INC.; JAMES URBAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-2129
BRIAN M. BISHOP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES URBAN; 7-ELEVEN INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:11-cv-00073-RAJ-FBS; 4:11-cv-00133-RAJ-FBS)
Submitted: January 10, 2012 Decided: February 7, 2012
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian M. Bishop, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Anthony Welter, WELTER
LAW FIRM, PC, Herndon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Brian M. Bishop seeks
to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
and the district court’s order to show cause. We dismiss the
appeals for a lack of jurisdiction.
In Appeal No. 11-2127, we dismiss 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 August 9, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on
October 14, 2011. Because Bishop failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal.
In Appeal No. 11-2129, we again dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-
46 (1949). The order Bishop seeks to appeal is neither a final
3
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4