Court Opinion

ID: 9890664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 21:00:42.542019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.572739
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1530      Doc: 18         Filed: 10/12/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1530

        EDDIE ROY JACKSON, JR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        WILHELM RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; 3289 CORPORATION; ROSEMARIE
        KEMMER; DOUGLAS HEWITT,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00165-RDA-TCB)

        Submitted: September 21, 2023                                 Decided: October 12, 2023

        Before KING, HEYTENS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eddie Roy Jackson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Morgan Palmer, Norfolk, Virginia,
        Randy Carl Sparks, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1530      Doc: 18         Filed: 10/12/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Eddie Roy Jackson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting Appellees’ motion

        to dismiss his civil complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). * We have reviewed the record

        and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the pending motion and affirm the

        district court’s order. See Jackson v. Wilhelm Rest. Grp., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00165-RDA-

        TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 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

               *
                Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal, because the notice of appeal was filed
        more than 30 days after the district court’s order was entered on the docket. (ECF No. 8).
        Jackson opposes the motion. (ECF No. 16). Because the district court’s order was not set
        forth on a separate document, we conclude that the notice of appeal was timely filed, and
        we have jurisdiction over the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii).

                                                     2