Court Opinion

ID: 9401139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:35.865812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.929802
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1310      Doc: 48         Filed: 06/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 19-1310

        RYLINDA RHODES,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01824-GLR)

        Submitted: October 19, 2022                                          Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Aaron H. Szot, Elaine L. Fitch, KALIJARVI, CHUZI, NEWMAN & FITCH,
        P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant.      Frank A. Chernak, MONTGOMERY,
        MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Michelle M.
        McGeogh, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1310      Doc: 48         Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Rylinda Rhodes appeals the district court’s judgment entered in favor of her former

        employer, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC (“Comcast”), in Rhodes’

        employment discrimination action. Rhodes seeks to challenge the district court’s jury

        instructions regarding the standards governing an actionable hostile work environment

        claim. Rhodes also asserts that the district court erred when it denied her (1) Fed. R. Civ.

        P. 59(a) motion for a new trial; and (2) Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) motion for extension of time

        to file a notice of appeal (“August 8 Order”). Comcast has filed a motion to dismiss

        Rhodes’ appeal, in part, to the extent Rhodes seeks to challenge the underlying judgment

        and that portion of the August 8 Order denying Rule 59(a) relief. Comcast also seeks

        summary affirmance of that portion of the August 8 Order denying Rhodes’ motion for

        extension of time to file an appeal. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               In civil cases, parties have 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 entered final judgment in Rhodes’ action on January 16, 2019. Rhodes filed the

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1310      Doc: 48          Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        notice of appeal on March 22, 2019. Rhodes failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

        obtain an extension of the appeal period. 1

               Although Rhodes initially obtained an extension of her time to appeal and timely

        filed a notice of appeal within the time allowed by the district court, 2 upon review, we find

        that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Rhodes’ motion for an

        extension of time to appeal. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530,

        534 (4th Cir. 1996). To the extent Rhodes asserts that her motion for Rule 59(a) relief

        extended her time to file an appeal, the district court did not dispose of Rhodes’ motion

        until April 22, 2021, and Rhodes failed to file a new or amended notice of appeal. We

        therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the validity of the district court’s order denying

        Rhodes’ motion for a new trial. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) (“A party intending to

        challenge an order disposing of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A) . . . must file a notice

        of appeal, or an amended notice of appeal . . . within the time prescribed by this Rule

        measured from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion.”).

               1
                  The court entered an amended judgment on January 30, 2019, but that filing did
        not toll the appeal period. See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regul. Co.,
        344 U.S. 206, 211-12 (1952) (holding where judgment previously entered has been
        reentered or revised in immaterial way, period in which to seek review of judgment is not
        tolled).
               2
                 We possess jurisdiction to consider Rhodes’ challenge to the district court’s
        decision to deny her motion for an extension of time to file an appeal. See Diamond v.
        United States Dist. Ct., 661 F.2d 1198, 1198 (9th Cir. 1981) (recognizing that the denial of
        a motion for extension of time to file an appeal is an appealable order).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1310      Doc: 48        Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

              Accordingly, we affirm the August 8 Order, in part, to the extent the district court

        denied Rhodes’ motion for an extension of time to file an appeal and thus grant, in part,

        Comcast’s motion and dismiss the remainder of Rhodes’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

        We deny Comcast’s motion for summary affirmance as moot. 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 IN PART,
                                                                             DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    4