Case Name: Cargyle Brown SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shareese KESS-LEWIS; Randolph T. Lewis, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-27
Citations: 563 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 13-2518
Parties: Cargyle Brown SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shareese KESS-LEWIS; Randolph T. Lewis, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
Cargyle Brown SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shareese KESS-LEWIS; Randolph T. Lewis, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-2518.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2014.
Decided: March 27, 2014.
Cargyle Brown Solomon, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cargyle Brown Solomon seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing her complaint and denying in part her motion to seal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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 entered its order dismissing the complaint on July 18, 2013, and its order ruling on the motion to seal on September 3, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on December 12, 2013. Because Solomon failed to file a timely notice of appeal from either order or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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.