Opinion
No. 18-2390
01-24-2019
VALERIE ARROYO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANIEL J. ZAMORA, Attorney at Law; CHAD DIAMOND, Attorney at Law; NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION; MECKLENBURG COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT; JUDICIAL STANDARD COMMISSION; ETHICS COMMISSION; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants - Appellees.
Valerie Arroyo, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Christopher Burke, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:17-cv-00721-FDW-DCK) Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Valerie Arroyo, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Christopher Burke, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Valerie Arroyo seeks to appeal the district court's order enjoining her for one year from filing in her underlying civil case. 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 June 19, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on September 10, 2018. Because Arroyo failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny all pending motions. 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