Steven L. Joffe, M.d. v. Alivcor, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1886
STEVEN L. JOFFE, M.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALIVCOR, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00078-JRR)
Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 23, 2026
Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven L. Joffe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Steven L. Joffe seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil
complaint without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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 appeal
period commences when the district court enters a separate judgment implementing its
dismissal order, or 150 days after entry of its dismissal order, whichever is earlier. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58(c)(2).
The district court entered its order on January 29, 2025. Because the district court
did not enter a separate judgment, the appeal period began to run on June 28, 2025, and
expired on July 28, 2025. Joffe filed the notice of appeal on August 4, 2025. Because
Joffe failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.*
* Joffe filed motions to transfer the case and for default judgment. We deny those
motions.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --