Opinion
No. 13-1102
09-03-2013
DAWN NORMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RHODA PATNELTTLI; BOENCA NORMAN; ISABELLE HILLARD; CLAUDETTE REVIES; EURINCE RUSSELL; LILLIE NORMAN; GEORGE CORSELLI; CLARENCE NORMAN; SANDRA RUSSELL; HAROLD RUSSELL; LAURA JACKSON; WILLIANETTA WILLIAMS; DEE RODRIGUEZ; EIDDIE SANDRA HAROLD; ANABELLA RANDOLPH; RALPH RANDOLPH; PATRICK PATNETTLI; SHOFIA WILLIAMS; NEAL CARTER; MARGARET SIMMONS; KIRK JACKSON; GAYE CORSELLI; TATANNA CORSELLI; TIFFANY CORSELLI; ERENEST HOLMES; ROXANNE NORMAN; BEVERLY SIMMONS; HERBERT NORMAN; JAMES HILLIARD; THELMA JENKINS, Defendants - Appellees, and UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Defendant.
Dawn Norman, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00581-JRS) Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawn Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Dawn Norman seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice her civil case 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 9, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed over three months later, on January 18, 2013. Because Norman 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