USCA4 Appeal: 23-1995 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1995

RONALD SATISH EMRIT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA DARDEN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS; ADAMS & GARTH; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP); EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC); UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ), Civil Rights Division,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Robert S. Ballou, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00020-RSB)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1995 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Satish Emrit seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 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,

(2007).

The district court entered its order on July 6, 2023. Emrit filed the notice of appeal

on September 22, 2023. Because Emrit 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