794 Fed.Appx. 338 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-2189, Lester v. Esper

Docket Nº:19-2189
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 338
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Dwayne Lavaughn LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark T. ESPER, Secretary, United States Department of Defense; Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA); Office of the Inspector General; Cindy Your; Alan Lynn, Director; Jang Suh, IG Inspector; Nancy Solomon, IG Inspector; Robert Knutti, Visual Information Chief; Katherine Lloyd, (DISA), ...
Attorney:Dwayne Lavaughn Lester, Appellant Pro Se.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 338

794 Fed.Appx. 338 (4th Cir. 2020)

Dwayne Lavaughn LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Mark T. ESPER, Secretary, United States Department of Defense; Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA); Office of the Inspector General; Cindy Your; Alan Lynn, Director; Jang Suh, IG Inspector; Nancy Solomon, IG Inspector; Robert Knutti, Visual Information Chief; Katherine Lloyd, (DISA), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-2189

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03749-CCB)

Dwayne Lavaughn Lester, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Lavaughn Lester seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Lester’s civil action against them, and subsequently denying Lester’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 entered its order denying Lester’s Rule 59(e) motion on August 20, 2019. Lester filed his notice of appeal on October 24, 2019. Because Lester 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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP