Sharon Williams v. Horry Georgetown Tech College

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cv-00429-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court. [999495883]. Mailed to: Appellant. [14-1968]

Appeal: 14-1968

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1968

SHARON BROWN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HORRY GEORGETOWN TECHNICAL COLLEGE,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:11-cv-00429-MGL)

Submitted:

December 16, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided: December 18, 2014

Judges,

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sharon Brown Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Charles J. Boykin,
Kenneth A. Davis, Deidre D. Laws, BOYKIN & DAVIS, LLC, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1968

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sharon
court’s

order

Brown

denying

Williams
her

seeks

motions

to

to

dismissal of her Title VII complaint.

appeal

the

reconsider

district

the

court’s

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 August 13, 2014.

The notice of appeal was filed on September

15, 2014, thirty-three days later.

Because Williams failed to

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening

of

dispense

with

contentions

the

are

appeal

oral

period,

argument

adequately

we

dismiss

because

presented

in

the
the

the
facts

appeal.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2