USCA4 Appeal: 23-1436 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1436

NATALYA HAMPEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; OFFICE ON AGING; RICHARD LEWIS, M.D.; DEBORAH SKILLMAN; UJNAI IMAIA, MD; SAFIYAH ARDAM SALMAN, MD; ASHLEY KIMBER, LCPC; PHIL LEMBO, LCSWC; MISS MONA; BRADLEY STOVER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01115-SAG)

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

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Natalya Tamara Hampel, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Anthony Damiano, SHAW, BARNES & DAMIANO, P.A., Hunt Valley, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1436 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Natalya Hampel seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint

and denying reconsideration. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

In civil cases, parties have 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,

(2007).

The district court entered its dismissal order on January 5, 2023. Hampel filed the

notice of appeal on April 20, 2023. Because Hampel failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, * we dismiss the appeal as to

the dismissal order.

Turning to the district court’s denial of Hampel’s motion for reconsideration, from

which Hampel timely appealed, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible

error. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. Hampel v. Maryland, No. 1:22-cv-

01115-SAG (D. Md. Apr. 10, 2023). 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

* While Hampel filed a letter on February 8, 2023, that the district court construed as a motion for reconsideration, it did not toll the appeal period because it was not filed within 28 days of the entry of the underlying dismissal order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).

2