UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1027

MARIELA VALDERRAMA, 

Plaintiff – Appellant, 

v. 

HONEYWELL TSI AEROSPACE SERVICES; VICTOR MILLER, Counsel; 

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; KATHERINE L. ADAMS, 

Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:09-

cv-02114-RWT) 

Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Mariela Valderrama, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Shapiro, PROSKAUER 

ROSE, LLP, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Mariela Valderrama seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in her

civil action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001 to 

1461 (West 2008 & Supp. 2010), and the Maryland Wage Payment and 

Collection Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-501 to 3-509 

(LexisNexis 2008 & Supp. 2010), and its subsequent order denying 

her motions for relief from judgment and for a perjury hearing 

and granting Defendants’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply 

memorandum. 

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. 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 granting summary judgment 

to Defendants was entered on the docket on July 14, 2010. 

However, Valderrama’s motion for relief from judgment, which we 

treat as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend 
3

judgment,*

Valderrama also appeals the district court’s order 

granting in part Defendants’ motion for sanctions and denying 

Valderrama’s motion to renew. On appeal, we confine our review 

to issues raised in the Appellant’s informal brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Valderrama’s informal appellate brief alleges no 

relevant claim of error by the district court. We conclude that 

Valderrama has forfeited appellate review of this order, 

see Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 

(4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1140 (2010), and 

therefore affirm it. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

stayed the appeal the period. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(4)(A). The district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion by 

order entered on September 15, 2010. Valderrama had thirty 

days, or until October 15, 2010, to file her notice of appeal. 

The notice of appeal was not filed until January 7, 2011. 

Because Valderrama failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

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

dismiss the appeal of these orders for lack of jurisdiction. 

 * Valderrama’s motion for relief from judgment sought 

reconsideration of the district court’s July 14 order granting 

summary judgment to Defendants and was filed on July 21, 2010, 

within the twenty-eight-day time limit for filing Rule 59(e) 

motions. Accordingly, we treat the motion as a Rule 59(e) 

motion. Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). 
4

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART