Kevin L. Chapple, Appellant, v. LLC (2019)

Neil F. Letren appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Trans Union, LLC, on his claims of violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1681 to 1681x (West 2009 & Supp. 2018) (2012), and Letren and his former attorney, Kevin L. Chapple, appeal from the district court's orders granting Trans Union's motion for sanctions and imposing sanctions on Letren and Chapple, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and denying their motion to alter or amend that order.

We dismiss Letren's appeal from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Trans Union 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 February 2, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on June 27, 2018. Because Letren failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.

Letren and Chapple appeal from the district court order imposing sanctions in the amount of $ 200 against Letren and $ 4000 against Chapple and denying their motion to alter or amend that order. We have reviewed the record and arguments made by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the sanctions order for the reasons stated by the district court. Letren v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 8:15-cv-03361-PX, 2017 WL 4098743 (D. Md. Sept. 15, 2017). We note that, by failing to address in their opening brief the order denying their motion to alter or amend, Letren and Chapple have waived review of that order. See Canady v. Crestar Mortgage Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir. 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.