Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CARMAX, INC.; CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. Montgomery B. SIBLEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Montgomery Blair Sibley seeks to appeal the district court's November 21, 2018, order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting Appellees’ motion for attorneys’ fees, and denying Sibley's motion to disqualify the district court judge. We dismiss the appeal as untimely and duplicative.
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 21, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed on May 3, 2019, and is duplicative of a prior appeal of the same order that was dismissed for failure to prosecute. CarMax, Inc. v. Sibley, No. 18-2491 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2019) (unpublished order). Contrary to Sibley's assertion, the district court did not grant a reopening of the appeal period. Because Sibley failed to file the notice of appeal within the applicable appeal period, and failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,1 and because the appeal itself is duplicative, we dismiss the appeal.2 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
FOOTNOTES
1. Sibley's Fed. R. 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the appeal period, filed on December 4, 2018, was rendered moot by his December 13, 2018, filing of the notice of appeal that was docketed as Appeal No. 18-2491.
2. To the extent that Sibley seeks to appeal the April 17, 2019, order denying his motion for disqualification of the district court judge, Sibley has waived appellate review of the order by failing to address it in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The [c]ourt will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”).
PER CURIAM:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-1492
Decided: October 01, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)