Danara McLaurin v. Verizon Maryland, Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999687418-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-04053-JKB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999737492]. Mailed to: Danara McLaurin. [15-2172]

Appeal: 15-2172

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2172

DANARA MCLAURIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VERIZON MARYLAND, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14cv-04053-JKB)

Submitted:

January 14, 2016

Decided:

January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danara McLaurin, Appellant Pro Se. Elena D. Marcuss, Adam Thomas
Simons, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2172

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Danara McLaurin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing her employment discrimination complaint.

We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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
27, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on September 29, 2015.

Because McLaurin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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

2