Robinson v. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration , 625 F. App'x 213 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1937
KATHERINE B. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
(DOJ/DEA); VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00475-JCC-MSN)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine B. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Melissa Elaine Goforth
Koenig, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Katherine Robinson, a pro se litigant who is not
incarcerated, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting the Department of Justice/Drug Enforcement
Administration’s unopposed motion to dismiss her civil claims
against it. We dismiss the appeal.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 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 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
June 3, 2015, but Robinson did not file her notice of appeal
until August 14, 2015. Because Robinson failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal. * We dispense with oral argument because the
* To the extent that Robinson seeks to appeal the portion of
the district court’s order remanding back to the Virginia state
court from where they were removed her claims against the
Virginia Employment Commission, that holding is not reviewable
on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012).
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3