Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0188-01.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

Edna J. TULLIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SILGAN PLASTICS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-1713
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 21, 2017
    Decided: December 27, 2017
    Edna J. Tullius, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas O. McCarthy, MCMAHON BERGER, PC, St. Louis, Missouri, For Appel-lee.
    Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edna Tullius seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint alleging violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code §§ 5-11-1 to 5-11-20 (2013 & Supp. 2017). 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 May 8, 2017. Tullius filed the notice of appeal 31 days later, on Thursday, June 8, 2017. Because Tullius faded 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