Court Opinion

ID: 4398643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-05-20 19:00:22.641923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:42.712089
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-2482

ANGELIA TAYLOR,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00683-RDB)

Submitted: May 16, 2019                                           Decided: May 20, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelia Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Angelia Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to Defendant in Taylor’s suit alleging employment discrimination and

retaliation. 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. 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 November 1, 2018. The

notice of appeal was filed on December 11, 2018. Because Taylor failed to file a timely

notice of appeal 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

                                              2