R.T. v. C.E.V.K.
This text of R.T. v. C.E.V.K. (R.T. v. C.E.V.K.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2107
R.T.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
C.E.V.K.; J.,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 08-2110
C.E.V.K.,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge; Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00517-RDB; 1:08-cv- 01566-CCB)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. No. 08-2107 dismissed; No. 08-2110 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
R.T., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2 PER CURIAM:
These consolidated appeals arise from two separate
actions challenging the same arbitration proceeding, in which
R.T. unsuccessfully challenged his employment termination. In
Case No. 08-2107, R.T. seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action against the
arbitrator. A party to a civil suit in which the United States
is not a party has thirty days from the date judgment is entered
to file a notice of 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.”
Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also
Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007) (“Today we make
clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil
case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). The district court’s
order was entered on the docket on May 8, 2008, and R.T.’s
notice of appeal was filed on September 25, 2008, well beyond
the thirty-day period. Accordingly, we dismiss R.T.’s appeal in
No. 08-2107 for lack of jurisdiction.
In Case No. 08-2110, R.T. appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his § 1983 and state law tort claims against
the arbitrator. We have reviewed the record in that case and
3 find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. See R.T. v. C.E.V.K., No. 1:08-cv-01566-CCB
(D. Md. Sept. 5, 2008). 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.
No. 08-2107 DISMISSED No. 08-2110 AFFIRMED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
R.T. v. C.E.V.K., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rt-v-cevk-ca4-2009.