Pamela Melvin v. USA TODAY

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00439-JRS. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999737295]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-2055]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-2055 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2055 PAMELA MELVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. USA TODAY; THE WASHINGTON POST; THE BOSTON GLOBE; CHICAGO SUN-TIMES; DETROIT FREE PRESS; LOS ANGELES TIMES; THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER; TAMPA BAY TIMES; THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS; THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION; THE STAR-LEDGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00439-JRS) Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part, curiam opinion. and affirmed in part by unpublished per Pamela Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen M. Faraci, Sr., LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Leslie Paul Machado, Laurin Howard Mills, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Alexandria, Virginia; Bradfute W. Davenport, Jr., TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-2055 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Pamela Melvin appeals the district court’s order of January 20, 2015, dismissing her complaint and a subsequent order denying her motions to clarify the court’s previous order and for relief from judgment. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. Melvin’s appeal of the district court’s January 20 order is untimely. 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 dismissing Melvin’s complaint was entered on the docket on January 20, 2015. filed on September 8, 2015. The notice of appeal was Because Melvin failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the January 20, 2015 order, we do not have jurisdiction to review that order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. As to Melvin’s appeal of the court’s subsequent order denying her motions to clarify and for relief from judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 2 Appeal: 15-2055 Doc: 25 court. Filed: 01/19/2016 Melvin v. USA Today, No. 3:14-cv-00439-JRS (E.D. Va. July 28, 2015). facts Pg: 3 of 3 and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?