**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1774** 

MARIE THERESE ASSA ’ AD

- FALTAS, MD MPH for herself and for all similarly situated persons , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, South Carolina; MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL; JEANNETTE MCBRIDE, Richland County Clerk of Court; DANA DAVIS TURNER, Chief Administrator of the City Municipal Court; ANGELA LADSEN, Ministerial Recorder for the City; SANDI MYERS, Parking Officer for the City; ALL PARKING OFFICERS, past pre sent and future for the City; MARION HANNA, Judge for Columbia ’ s Municipal Court; G. THOMAS COOPER, JR.; JAMES R. BARBER, JR.; SOUTH CAROLINA CIRCUIT JUDGES, and all other presently unknown persons and entities necessary for adjudication of this case all s olely in the official capacities and solely for injunctive relief , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv - 03014

- TLW )

Submitted : November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion
.2 Marie Therese Assa’ ad

- Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Holly Palmer Beeson, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Marie Assa’ad

- Faltas appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’ s recommendation to dismiss her claims arising out of a parking ticket she received in 2010 , as well as its order denying her self

- styled Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We dismiss Assa’ad

- Faltas’s appeal in part because s he failed to timely appeal the dist rict court’s order dismissing her claims, and affirm the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration
. Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not a party have thirty days following entry of judgment in which to file a noti ce of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). “[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); see United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussi ng Bowles and the appeal periods under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). Assa’ad

- Faltas’s notice of appeal, filed more than thirty days after the district court entered its order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, was untimely filed
. Moreover, we find that Assa’ad

- Faltas’s motion for reconsideration, which was filed more than twenty

- eight days after the district court’s order grantin g Defendants’ motion to dismiss , did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal of the underlying order4 because it was not a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion. See Panhorst v. United States , 241 F.3d 367, 369

- 73 (4th Cir. 2001). Although the district court did not explicitly construe Assa’ad

Faltas’s motion for reconsideration as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, we nonetheless find that Assa’ad

- Faltas’s motion failed to establish that s he was entitled to Rule 60(b) relief. * See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Based on the foregoing, we dismiss Assa’ad

- Faltas’s appeal of the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and affirm the district cour t’s denial of Assa’ad

Faltas’s motion for reconsideration. We dispense with o ral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisio nal process.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

* Because Assa’ad

- Faltas’s Rule 60(b) motion was not the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 3, we decline to construe the motion as a notice of appeal.