Sukit Kumvachirapitag v. Bill Gates, No. 13-2077 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2077 SUKIT N. KUMVACHIRAPITAG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BILL GATES; STEVE BALLMER; TIM COOK; BANK OF AMERICA; CORPORATIONS; GLOBAL BANKING; GLOBAL FINANCIAL; GLOBAL DEBTS; NATIONAL DEBTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:13-cv-00117-FL) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sukit N. Kumvachirapitag, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sukit N. Kumvachirapitag seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing the amended complaint after Kumvachirapitag failed to comply with the district court s order directing that a particularized complaint be filed. Kumvachirapitag has also filed several motions with this court. We deny the pending motions and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 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). When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, and unless the district court extends or reopens the appeal period, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Fed. R. App. [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). Kumvachirapitag filed the notice of appeal sixty-two days after the district court s dismissal order was entered on the docket. Because Kumvachirapitag failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the 2 appeal period, appeal. legal before we deny the pending motions and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
