Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02165/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02165-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monica Jeffries
Appellant
Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2165

MONICA JEFFRIES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-00473-GJH)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monica Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se. Gilda Bethany Ingle, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, 

Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2165 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Monica Jeffries seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss her claims brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 

U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2018). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

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 July 11, 2016. The notice of 

appeal was filed on October 21, 2019. Because Jeffries failed 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 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2165 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 2 of 2