Vernice Bell v. Weyerhaeuser NR Company , 625 F. App'x 203 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-2183
    VERNICE BELL,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:15-cv-00018-FL)
    Submitted:   December 17, 2015            Decided:   December 21, 2015
    Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Vernice Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Weddington,
    PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Vernice Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on her complaint.                 We dismiss the appeal for lack
    of   jurisdiction      because   the    notice         of    appeal      was   not   timely
    filed.
    Parties    are    accorded       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’s order was entered on the docket on
    April 29, 2015.         The notice of appeal was filed on October 5,
    2015.    Because Bell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
    deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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: 15-2183

Citation Numbers: 625 F. App'x 203

Judges: Diaz, Harris, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024