Filed: Jun. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1350 CRYSTAL R. SCHINDLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:14- cv-03328-PWG) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Crystal R. Schindler,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1350 CRYSTAL R. SCHINDLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:14- cv-03328-PWG) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Crystal R. Schindler, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1350
CRYSTAL R. SCHINDLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:14-
cv-03328-PWG)
Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Crystal R. Schindler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Crystal R. Schindler seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim for
which relief could be granted. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed.
In civil cases in which the United States is not a party,
parties are accorded 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’s order was entered on the docket on
November 6, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on April 2,
2015. Because Schindler 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
*
Schindler submitted two other filings in the district
court prior to filing her notice of appeal. We conclude that
neither of these filings constitutes the functional equivalent
of a notice of appeal. See Smith v. Barry,
502 U.S. 244, 248
(1992); Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 175 (4th Cir. 2014).
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3