John B. Laschkewitsch, as Administrator for the Estate of Ben Laschkewitsch v. LINCOLN LIFE AND ANNUITY DISTRIBUTORS, INC., d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1178
JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH, as Administrator for the Estate of
Ben Laschkewitsch,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LINCOLN LIFE AND ANNUITY DISTRIBUTORS, INC., d/b/a Lincoln
Financial Group,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00315-BO)
Submitted: September 17, 2015 Decided: September 23, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Laschkewitsch, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Nis Leerberg,
SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Robert R.
Marcus, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
John B. Laschkewitsch seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in Defendant’s favor. We
dismiss the appeal 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). If a party files
in the district court any of the motions listed in Rule
4(a)(4)(A), the 30-day appeal period runs from the entry of the
order disposing of the last such motion. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(A). “[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
September 16, 2014. Laschkewitsch timely filed a Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, which the district court
denied on January 15, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed
thirty-five days later, on February 19, 2015. Because
Laschkewitsch failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot the parties’ pending

-- 2 of 3 --

3
motions. 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

-- 3 of 3 --