Summary
denying pro se plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, where the amended "allegations fail to state a plausible claim for relief and cannot withstand Rule 12(b) review"
Summary of this case from Battle v. BurwellOpinion
No. 16-2006
11-21-2016
JANOT JASSIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KEITH MARINER, Defendant - Appellee.
Janot Jassie, Appellant Pro Se. Teresa D. Teare, Parker Engle Thoeni, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01682-DKC) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janot Jassie, Appellant Pro Se. Teresa D. Teare, Parker Engle Thoeni, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Janot Jassie seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for leave to amend his amended complaint, which Jassie filed after the district court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss Jassie's amended complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 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's order was entered on the docket on June 10, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on September 2, 2016. Because Jassie failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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