Yolanda Bell v. Department of Defense

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00470-TSE-IDD.Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999918832]. Mailed to: Michael Anthony Rizzotti. [15-2367]

Appeal: 15-2367

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2367

YOLANDA BELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00470-TSE-IDD)

Submitted:

August 25, 2016

Decided:

August 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Yolanda Bell, Appellant Pro Se.
Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Anthony Rizzotti,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2367

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Yolanda Bell appeals the district court’s order denying her
Fed.

R.

Civ.

against

P.

her

60(b)(2)

and

reconsideration.

the

motion

to

order

set

denying

aside
her

the

judgment

motion

for

As to the Rule 60(b) order, we have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm

the denial of Rule 60(b) relief for the reasons stated by the
district court.

Bell v. Dep’t of Def., No. 1:14-cv-00470-TSE-

IDD (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 2015).
As to the order denying Bell’s motion for reconsideration,
we dismiss the appeal of that order for lack of jurisdiction.
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement.”
214 (2007).

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

In a civil action in which a United States agency

is a party, parties have 60 days after entry of the district
court’s order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B),
unless a party obtains an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (a)(6).

“[A] bare notice of

appeal should not be construed as a motion for extension of
time, where no request for additional time is manifest,” even
for appellants proceeding pro se.
F.2d

899,

omitted).

900-01

(4th

Cir.

Washington v. Bumgarner, 882

1989)

(internal

quotation

marks

Here, the order denying reconsideration was entered

on October 9, 2015, but Bell did not file her notice of appeal
2

Appeal: 15-2367

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

of that order until December 9, 2015—61 days after entry—and she
has not sought an extension or reopening of the appeal period.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3