Opinion
No. 13-1487
09-03-2013
SAMUEL H. MWABIRA-SIMERA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMPSON HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLP; JOHN STEVENSON, Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees.
Samuel H. Mwabira-Simera, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Dowd, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00848-WMN; 1:11-cv-02989-WMN) Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel H. Mwabira-Simera, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Dowd, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Samuel H. Mwabira-Simera filed a notice of appeal concerning two cases consolidated in the district court. The notice of appeal does not identify what district court order he wishes to appeal; however, because the notice of appeal is untimely as to any and all orders below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (setting out time limits for noting appeal in civil cases not involving the United States or its employees or agencies); see also Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (stating notice of appeal must "designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed").
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 most recent district court order was entered on the district court docket in August 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on April 12, 2013. Because Mwabira-Simera failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.
DISMISSED