459 F. App'x 262
4th Cir.
2011

Adam J. CIRALSKY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. George J. TENET, individually and in his capacity as Director of Central Intelligence; Louis Joseph Freeh, in his capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Robert McNamara, Jr., individually and in his capacity as the General Counsel Central Intelligence Agency; John Doe, individually and in his capacity as the Chief, Counterintelligence Center, CIA; Edward Curran, individually and in his capacity as Chief, Counterintelligence Group, CIA; John Lewis, individually and in his capacity as Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Richard Calder, individually and in his capacity as Deputy Director for Administration, CIA; Dawn Eilenberger, individually and in her capacity as the Principal Deputy General Counsel, CIA; Kathleen McGinn, individually and in her capacity as Complaints Attorney, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, CIA, Defendants—Appellees, and Central Intelligence Agency; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants.

No. 10-2414.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: Dec. 20, 2011.

262

Richard L. Swick, David H. Shapiro, Ellen K. Renaud, Swick & Shapiro, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Assistant United States Attorney, Douglas N. Letter, Dana Kaersvang, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adam J. Ciralsky appeals the district court‘s judgment dismissing his complaint alleging various causes of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), for violations of his constitutional rights and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2006). All of Ciralsky‘s claims arise from the revocation of his security clearance and his subsequent termination from federal employment. The district court dismissed Ciralsky‘s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, based on qualified immunity, and as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the district court‘s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Branson MAINOR, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 11-6768.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: Dec. 22, 2011.

263

James Branson Mainor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Branson Mainor, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court‘s order accepting the magistrate judge‘s recommendation to deny his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion, and has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny Mainor‘s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 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, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court‘s order was entered on the docket on February 8, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on June 6, 2011.*

Notes

*
Although Mainor‘s notice of appeal was not filed in the district court until June 7, 2011,