Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02183/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02183-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vernice Bell
Appellant
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2183

VERNICE BELL,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:15-cv-00018-FL)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernice Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Weddington, 

PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2183 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Vernice Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on her complaint. 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 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

April 29, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on October 5, 

2015. Because Bell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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

Appeal: 15-2183 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2