Earl Gordon v. Greater Washington Orthopaedic, No. 14-2312 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2312 EARL STEWART GORDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GREATER WASHINGTON ORTHOPAEDIC GROUP, P.A.; DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY; THE HEALTH CLAIM ARBITRATION OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-02429-DKC) Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Stewart Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Earl Stewart Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his civil action and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. Parties are accorded thirty 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. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). notice of appeal requirement.” in Bowles a “The timely filing of a case is Russell, v. civil 551 U.S. a jurisdictional 205, 214 (2007). Because Gordon filed his appeal more than thirty days after the entry without of the district prejudice, court’s and failed order to dismissing obtain an his action extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of this order as untimely. Gordon’s notice of appeal denying his Rule 60(b) motion. find no reversible error. was timely as to the order We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion for the reasons stated by the district court. Gordon v. Greater Washington Orthopaedic Group, P.A., No. 8:14-cv-02429-DKC (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2014). 2 We dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
