Opinion
No. 19-1664
10-21-2019
MARIA CHANTE MORRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAS INSTITUTE, INC., Defendant - Appellee.
Maria Chante Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Ceglowski, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cv-00269-D) Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maria Chante Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Ceglowski, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Maria Chante Morris seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her sexual harassment and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2019), against SAS Institute, Inc. (SAS). SAS has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We grant SAS' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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 May 14, 2019. Morris filed her notice of appeal on June 17, 2019. Because Morris failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant SAS' motion and dismiss the appeal. We deny Morris' application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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