Siddhanth Sharma v. Damon Circosta

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1535
SIDDHANTH SHARMA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official capacity as Chair of the North Carolina State
Board of Elections; STELLA ANDERSON, in her official capacity as a member of
the North Carolina State Board of Elections; JEFF CARMON, in his official capacity
as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; STACY EGGERS, IV,
in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections;
TOMMY TUCKER, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State
Board of Elections; KAREN BRINSON BELL, in her official capacity as the
Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; NORTH
CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00059-BO)
Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 26, 2024
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Siddhanth Sharma, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Siddhanth Sharma seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his
complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. 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, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court entered its dismissal order on May 16, 2022. Sharma filed the
notice of appeal on May 15, 2023. Because Sharma 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 Sharma’s Rule 60(b) motion, from which
Sharma timely appealed, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error.
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. Sharma v. Circosta, No. 5:22-cv-00059-
BO (E.D.N.C. filed May 11, 2023 & entered May 12, 2023). We deny Sharma’s motions
for injunctive relief and to consolidate. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
* Sharma’s Rule 60(b) motion 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).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --