Opinion
22-2068
02-21-2023
CAROLYN FRANCES COVINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DENIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellee.
Carolyn Frances Covington, Appellant Pro Se. William Hammond Jordan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 16, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (3:19-cv-03399-JD)
Carolyn Frances Covington, Appellant Pro Se.
William Hammond Jordan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Carolyn Frances Covington seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granting Denis Richard McDonough summary judgment on Covington's age discrimination claims. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 its order on August 8, 2022. Covington filed the notice of appeal on October 11, 2022. Because Covington 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 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.