Opinion
No. 19-1492
10-01-2019
CARMAX, INC.; CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. MONTGOMERY B. SIBLEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Montgomery B. Sibley, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Durrum Wingfield, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00611-MHL-DJN) Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Montgomery B. Sibley, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Durrum Wingfield, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Montgomery Blair Sibley seeks to appeal the district court's November 21, 2018, order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting Appellees' motion for attorneys' fees, and denying Sibley's motion to disqualify the district court judge. We dismiss the appeal as untimely and duplicative.
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 order was entered on the docket on November 21, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed on May 3, 2019, and is duplicative of a prior appeal of the same order that was dismissed for failure to prosecute. CarMax, Inc. v. Sibley, No. 18-2491 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2019) (unpublished order). Contrary to Sibley's assertion, the district court did not grant a reopening of the appeal period. Because Sibley failed to file the notice of appeal within the applicable appeal period, and failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, and because the appeal itself is duplicative, 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.
Sibley's Fed. R. 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the appeal period, filed on December 4, 2018, was rendered moot by his December 13, 2018, filing of the notice of appeal that was docketed as Appeal No. 18-2491.
To the extent that Sibley seeks to appeal the April 17, 2019, order denying his motion for disqualification of the district court judge, Sibley has waived appellate review of the order by failing to address it in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The [c]ourt will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief."). --------
DISMISSED