Court Opinion

ID: 9892570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 16:03:07.836469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:15.713940
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12627   Document: 36-2     Date Filed: 10/24/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                  In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                               No. 23-12627
                           ____________________

       TINA GEE,
                                                    Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       JADA MITCHELL,
       JONES,
       Captain,
       SPENCER,
       Lt,
       CHRISTIAN,
       STANTON,
       Officers, et al.,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees,
USCA11 Case: 23-12627      Document: 36-2      Date Filed: 10/24/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                        Order of the Court                  23-12627

       THE CITY OF TUSCALOOSA, et al.,

                                                                 Defendants.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                      D.C. Docket No. 7:23-cv-00388-LSC
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       BY THE COURT:
               The motions to dismiss filed by appellees are DENIED. Tina
       Gee appeals from the district court’s July 10, 2023 final order dis-
       missing her case with prejudice. The appellees argue that the ap-
       peal is untimely because Gee filed her notice of appeal on August
       10, 2023, 31 days after the final order was entered. However, the
       district court never entered judgment in a separate document, so
       Gee was entitled to an additional 150 days in which to appeal be-
       yond the normal 30-day deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A),
       4(a)(7)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), (c). Thus, Gee’s notice of appeal is
       timely.