Rhonda Jones v. A. Catoggia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-1042-AJT-TRJ. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998614839]. Mailed to: Rhonda Jones. [11-6185]

Appeal: 11-6185

Document: 19

Date Filed: 06/20/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6185

RHONDA K. JONES,
Plaintiff ─ Appellant,
v.
A. J. CATOGGIA, OFC; RICHMOND POLICE,
Defendants ─ Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-1042-AJT-TRJ)

Submitted:

June 16, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

June 20, 2011

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rhonda K. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6185

Document: 19

Date Filed: 06/20/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Rhonda K. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and state law tort
claims.

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

January

3,

2011.

February 7, 2011.

The

notice

of

appeal

was

filed

on

Because Jones 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

2