Case Name: Sabrina D. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Kia Motors of America, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-19
Citations: 370 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 09-2296
Parties: Sabrina D. DAVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee, and Kia Motors of America, Defendant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 408–408

Head Matter:
Sabrina D. DAVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee, and Kia Motors of America, Defendant.
No. 09-2296.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 16, 2010.
Decided: March 19, 2010.
Sabrina D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. David Christopher Marshall, Curtis L. Ott, Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sabrina D. Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant Kia Motors America, Incorporated has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
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. RApp. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on August 18, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on November 18, 2009. Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal. 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED.