Court Opinion

ID: 215861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-05-02 19:43:18+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:26.121706
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 10-2123

PATRICIA BARNES,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

CAROLINAS MEDICAL CENTER,

                Defendant - Appellee,

          and

JAMES GREGORY; ENZO HOOPER; PHOEBIA MOYER,

                Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:02-cv-00486-RLV-DSC)

Submitted:   April 28, 2011                    Decided:   May 2, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.      Kimberly Quade Cacheris,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Patricia Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying her motion to permanently seal files.       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 August 23, 2010.     The notice of appeal was filed on September

30, 2010.     Because Barnes 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                  2