Case Name: Danara McLAURIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON MARYLAND, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-19
Citations: 629 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 15-2172
Parties: Danara McLAURIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON MARYLAND, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 629
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
Danara McLAURIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON MARYLAND, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-2172.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.
Decided: Jan. 19, 2016.
Dañara McLaurin, Appellant Pro Se. Elena D. Marcuss, Adam Thomas Simons, McGuirewoods, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dañara McLaurin seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her employment discrimination 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on August 27, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on September 29, 2015. Because McLaurin 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 and 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.