Skip to main content

DJENASEVIC v. DDS (2019)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Kabil Anton DJENASEVIC, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; United States Federal Bureau of Prisons; Federal Correctional Institution Beckley Health Service Department; United States of America, Defendants - Appellees, Dr. Hughes, DDS, Defendant.

No. 18-7464

Decided: April 29, 2019

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Kabil Anton Djenasevic, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Charles Lindsay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Kabil Anton Djenasevic seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider a prior order dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 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, 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's order was entered on the docket on September 4, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on November 18, 2018. Because Djenasevic 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard