Kirk Matelyan v. Sage Dining Services, No. 12-2281 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2281 KIRK D. MATELYAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAGE DINING SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:10-cv-02626-PJM) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirk D. Matelyan, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Keith Bautz, Gregory Lee VanGeison, ANDERSON, COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kirk D. Matelyan seeks to appeal the district court s orders resolving various discovery matters, granting summary judgment to the defendant, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. of the We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Matelyan s appeal discovery orders and the grant of summary because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. judgment We affirm the denial of Matelyan s Rule 60(b) motion. 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. 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 order granting summary judgment was entered on the docket on August 24, 2012. appeal was filed on October 15, 2012. The notice of Because Matelyan failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal to the extent it challenges the grant of summary judgment and the from the district court s preceding orders. Further, although Matelyan timely appealed order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, we find no error 2 in its denial and affirm. We grant Matelyan leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his motion seeking leave to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) motion. 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.
