Jared Neisser v. Wexford Health Services, No. 20-6308 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6308 JARED ANDREW NEISSER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; MARNETTE VALCIN, N.P.; BERNARD ALENDA, N.P.; EVELINE BOBGA TATONG, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Baltimore, at Maryland. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00888-ELH) Submitted: July 24, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jared Andrew Neisser, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jared Andrew Neisser seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, parties have 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). “[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 entered its order on December 10, 2019. Neisser filed the notice of appeal, at the earliest, on February 19, 2020. Because Neisser 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 Neisser’s motions to postpone and for appointment of counsel. 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 * Further, construing Neisser’s informal brief as a motion to reopen the appeal period, his motion was not timely filed. See Fed R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 2
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.
