Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2430 NEDRA CARR-STEPHENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC., OfficeMax Store #562, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00075-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2430 NEDRA CARR-STEPHENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC., OfficeMax Store #562, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00075-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2430
NEDRA CARR-STEPHENSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC., OfficeMax Store #562,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:13-cv-00075-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nedra Carr-Stephenson, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan K. Meals, DAVEY
& BROGAN, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nedra Carr-Stephenson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing her civil complaint for failure to
state a claim. 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 October 21, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on November
22, 2013. Because Carr-Stephenson failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Carr-
Stephenson’s motion to file an addendum/attachment to her
informal brief. 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