Theodore Raynovich, Plaintiff-appellant, v. State of Maryland, Department of Natural Resources; Donalde. Maclaucklan, Director of Department of Natural Resources;michael R. Gregory, Manager, Deep Creek Lake Naturalresources Management Area; Glendock, Inc., a Marylandcorporation, Defendants-appellees.theodore Raynovich, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dr. Torrey C. Brown, Secretary of the Department of Naturalresources; Donald E. Maclaucklan, Director of the Forestpark and Wildlife Service; Gary A. Yoder, Chief Ofenterprise Development Capital Administration; Michael R.gregory; Glendock, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, #d1711340; Jon E. Thayer; Jeanne A. Thayer; Robert G.stuck; Deborah A. Stuck; James R. Clark; Jean W. Clark;robert C. Mcclosky; Barbara E. Mcclosky; Paul R. Shiring;johanne Shiring; William Nebel; Constance L. Nebel, et Alc/o Paul Shiring; George Campbell; Theresa Campbell, C/opaul Shiring; Wulfrin A. Goldammer; Rose Goldammer; Dalew. White; Barbrah White; Charles J. Macgowan; Gloria J.macgowan, Defendants-appellees, 905 F.2d 1531 (4th Cir. 1990)

Theodore Raynovich brought these actions against numerous state and private defendants challenging the building of a dock on a right-of-way on his property. The two actions were consolidated by the district court. Raynovich notified the court that he was no longer the real party in interest because he had transferred the property in question to his grandson, Theodore Raynovich III, and suggested that the action be dismissed. The district court dismissed the action as to Raynovich, and gave his grandson an opportunity to file a complaint; however, that opportunity was declined.

Raynovich appealed the district court's order dismissing the action (No. 90-1703). He also filed a notice of appeal of the order consolidating C/A No. 88-785-K with C/A No. 88-1464-K (No. 90-1704).

Raynovich consented to the court's order from which he appealed in No. 90-1703 by suggesting that the case be dismissed because he was no longer the real party in interest. Further, he has not established facts to nullify his consent to the dismissal. Therefore, we affirm the district court's order dismissing the action at Raynovich's suggestion. Thonen v. Jenkins, 455 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1972).

Further, Raynovich's notice of appeal in No. 90-1704 was filed nine months after the district court's final order in that action.^*  Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process.

No. 90-1703--AFFIRMED.

No. 90-1704--DISMISSED.