Court Opinion

ID: 9893682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-29 21:00:32.94379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:39.915592
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1959      Doc: 21         Filed: 10/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1959

        NITHYA VINAYAGAM,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        AJAY KUMAR MALPANI; QSI SERVICES, INC.,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00006-DJN)

        Submitted: August 31, 2023                                    Decided: October 27, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nithya Vinayagam, Appellant Pro Se. Jesse Matthew Bless, BLESS LITIGATION,
        Georgetown, Massachusetts, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1959      Doc: 21         Filed: 10/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nithya Vinayagam appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint

        alleging claims arising out of her employment with Defendants. Defendants have moved

        to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Vinayagam did not timely file her notice of appeal. The

        district court entered the order dismissing Vinayagam’s complaint on July 29, 2022, but

        the district court’s 26-page order explaining the reasons for dismissal was not accompanied

        by a separate document setting forth the court’s judgment, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

        58(a). See Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1987). As a

        result, the 30-day appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) began to run 150 days

        after entry of the district court’s order on the docket. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c). Because

        Vinayagam noted her appeal 41 days after the entry of the district court’s order, her appeal

        was timely. See CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Johnson, 977 F.3d 306, 311 (4th Cir. 2020).

        We therefore deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

               Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.          Vinayagam v. Malpani, No.

        3:22-cv-00006-DJN (E.D. Va. July 29, 2022). 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.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     2