Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William C.
Bond has noted an appeal from the district court’s May 13, 2014 order denying his self-styled “Post Judgment Motion to Vacate Orders, Remand & Re-cuse with Expedition Request,” July 2, 2014 order denying his motion seeking reconsideration of the May 13 order , and an evidentiary hearing, September 16, 2014 order denying his self-styled “Motion to Stay Notice of Appeal,” November 4, 2014 order denying his self-styled “Second (No. 2) Post Judgment Motion to Vacate Orders, Remand, & Recuse with Expedition Request,” and December 8, 2014 order granting his motion for extension of time to appeal the September 16 order.
We dismiss the appeal of the May 13 and July 2 orders for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was hot timely filed. We affirm the September 16, November 4, and December 8 orders. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. 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 May 13 and July 2 orders were entered on the docket on May 13, 2014 and July 2, 2014. Bond’s notice of appeal with respect to these orders was filed on December 16, 2014. Because Bond failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal periods with respect to these orders, we dismiss the appeal in part. Turning to the September 16, November 4, and December 8 orders, we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Bond’s informal brief does not challenge the December 8 order, Bond has forfeited appellate review of that order. With respect to the September 16 and November 4 orders, we have reviewed the record and Bond’s informal brief and conclude that he fails to establish any reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm those orders. Bond v. Blum, No. 1:07-cv-01385-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 16, Nov. 4 & Dec. 8, 2014).
We deny as moot Bond’s motion to extend the time for filing his informal brief and deny his motions to amend or correct recusal order and to recuse and transfer. 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.