William Bond v. Kenneth Blum, Sr., No. 14-2333 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2333 WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KENNETH BLUM, SR.; ERLENE BLUM; ALAN S. COHN; ROBIN COHN; KENNETH BLUM, JR.; DUDLEY F. B. HODGSON; WILLIAM H. SLAVIN; WILLIAM A. MCDANIEL, JR.; CAROLINE A. GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL, BENNETT & GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL & GRIFFIN; PAUL A. DORF; ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, LLC; GERARD P. MARTIN; MIRIAM PESSIN; RENT-A-WRECK OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01385-JFM) Submitted: May 11, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William court’s C. May Judgment Bond 13, 2014 Motion Expedition has to Request,” noted order appeal denying Vacate July an Orders, 2, 2014 from his the district self-styled Remand order & “Post Recuse denying his with motion seeking reconsideration of the May 13 order and an evidentiary hearing, “Motion September to Stay 16, Notice 2014 of order denying Appeal,” his November 4, self-styled 2014 order denying his self-styled “Second (No. 2) Post Judgment Motion to Vacate Orders, Remand, & Recuse with Expedition Request,” and December 8, 2014 order granting his motion for extension of time to appeal the September 16 order. We dismiss the appeal of the May 13 and July 2 orders for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. We affirm the September 16, November 4, and December 8 orders. Parties district are court’s accorded final 30 days judgment or after order the to entry note an of the 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 (2007). The district court’s May 13 and July 2 orders were entered on the docket on May 13, 2014 and July 2, 2014. 2 Bond’s notice of appeal with respect to these orders was filed on December 16, 2014. Because Bond failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal periods with respect to these orders, we dismiss the appeal in part. Turning to the September 16, November 4, and December 8 orders, we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bond’s informal brief does not challenge the December 8 order, Bond has forfeited appellate review of that order. With respect to the September 16 and November 4 orders, we have reviewed the record and Bond’s informal brief and establish any reversible error. leave to proceed in forma conclude that he fails to Accordingly, although we grant pauperis, we affirm those orders. Bond v. Blum, No. 1:07-cv-01385-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 16, Nov. 4 & Dec. 8, 2014). We deny as moot Bond’s motion to extend the time for filing his informal brief and deny his motions to amend or correct recusal order and to recuse and transfer. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED 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.
