David Shipp v. Eric Hargan, No. 20-1615 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 17, 2020.
 The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 1, 2023.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1615 DAVID M. SHIPP, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC HARGAN, Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:17-cv-03365-PX) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Shipp, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David M. Shipp seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant on Shipp’s civil complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 March 27, 2020. Shipp filed his first notice of appeal on June 1, 2020. Because Shipp failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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 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.