Edward D. Plotzker, M.d. v. ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2211
EDWARD D. PLOTZKER, M.D.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief United States District Court Judge
for the District of Columbia; AMERICAN BOARD OF UROLOGY,
Incorporated; KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP; GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY, d/b/a George Washington University Medical
Center; KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP; JOHN AND JANE DOES,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00027-nkm-bwc)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 24, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward D. Plotzker, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, James Worth
Draughn, Jr., KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., K.
Lorraine Lord, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, Melissa
Wolf Riley, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia, Adam
Howard Charnes, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellees.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Edward D. Plotzker, M.D., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss his
various claims against them. 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 sixty
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 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on October 22, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on October
20, 2009. Because Plotzker 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --