Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0141-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lesley BARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (VABC); Laura Kate Sheehan, Regional Manager (VABC); Beverly Anderson, Employee (VABC), Defendants-Appellees, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Incorporated, Amicus Supporting Appellant.
    No. 17-2016
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 30, 2018
    Decided: February 1, 2018
    Lesley Barr, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Flynn Robb, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Omar Francisco Gonzalez-Pagan, New York, New York, Sharon M. McGowan, Washington, D.C., Gregory R. Nevins, LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND, INC., Atlanta, Georgia, for Amicus Curiae.
    Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lesley Barr seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil rights action. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 28, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on August 30, 2017. Because Barr failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny amicus counsel’s motion to file a reply brief. We grant Barr’s motion to supplement, the record. 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