Arleatha Simms v. FedEx Ground Package System , 491 F. App'x 430 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-2075
    ARLEATHA M. SIMMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (3:11-cv-00745-JRS)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2012            Decided:   December 26, 2012
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Arleatha M. Simms, Appellant Pro Se. Monica Handa, Amy Sanborn
    Owen,   COCHRAN  &  OWEN,   LLC,  Vienna,  Virginia;  Christina
    Kepplinger Johansen, FEDEX GROUND, Moon Township, Pennsylvania,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Arleatha M. Simms seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order granting summary judgment to FedEx Ground Package System,
    Inc., on her claims of employment retaliation.             We dismiss the
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
    not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty 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’s order was entered on the docket
    on July 26, 2012.       The notice of appeal was filed on August 28,
    2012.   Because Simms failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
    dismiss the appeal.       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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-2075

Citation Numbers: 491 F. App'x 430

Judges: King, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024