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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?