Keith Ashe v. PNC Financial Services Group

647 F. App'x 156
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Keith Ashe v. PNC Financial Services Group. Read the opinion of the Court — 652 F. App'x 155
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 25, 2016·No. 15-2566·Unpublished

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keith Alexander Ashe seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for trademark infringement as barred by collateral estoppel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 17, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on December 18, 2015. Because Ashe failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 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.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Keith Ashe v. PNC Financial Services Group, 647 F. App'x 156 (4th Cir. 2016).

647 F. App'x 156 (Keith Ashe v. PNC Financial Services Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bowles v. Russell
551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court, 2007)