Court Opinion

ID: 4500891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-23 20:00:24.427396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:18.311360
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-2164

MONICA JEFFRIES,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:17-cv-00514-PJM)

Submitted: January 21, 2020                                       Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monica Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Monica Jeffries seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Jeffries’ motion

for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing her claims brought pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2018). 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 (2007).

       The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 8, 2017. The notice

of appeal was filed on October 21, 2019. Because Jeffries failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

We deny Jeffries’ motion for summary judgment. 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

                                              2