Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0445-01.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

Rosa Lee PRINGLE, Plaintiff-—Appellant, v. Daniel H. MARTIN, Jr., a/k/a Daniel E. Martin, Sr., a/k/a Former Judge Daniel E. Martin, Sr., Former Atty. Daniel E. Martin, Sr., Nickname Atty. Danny Jr., Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 09-2156.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
    Decided: Dec. 28, 2009.
    
      Rosa Lee Pringle, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Rosa Lee Pringle seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. We dismiss.

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. 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). Pringle filed her notice of appeal more than thirty days after the entry of both the original judgment and the denial of reconsideration. Further, she failed to properly move for an extension of time or for reopening of the appeal period. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of these orders as untimely-

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.