Edith Beauchamp v. State of Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-02667-TDC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930686].. [16-1283]

Appeal: 16-1283

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1283

EDITH J. BEAUCHAMP; KCB, minor child of Edith J. Beauchamp;
AJB, minor child of Edith J. Beauchamp; VIRGINIA WALCOTT
BEAUCHAMP, mother of Edith J. Beauchamp,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL
SERVICES;
CITY
OF
GREENBELT;
SAMIR
MALHOTRA,
Secretary of Human Resources; VAN T. MITCHELL, Secretary of
Health & Mental Hygiene; MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN, City Manager,
City
of
Greenbelt;
SHIREEN
BLAIR,
Crisis
Counselor,
Greenbelt CARES,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-02667-TDC)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edith J. Beauchamp, KCB, AJB, Virginia Walcott Beauchamp,
Appellants Pro Se. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Hilma Joy
Munson, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Kevin
Bock Karpinski, Sandra Diana Lee, KARPINSKI, COLARESI &

Appeal: 16-1283

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1283

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Edith J. Beauchamp seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing her civil rights action and denying her Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment.

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 denying Beauchamp’s Rule 59(e)
motion

was

Beauchamp

entered

subsequently

December 31, 2015.
notice

on

of

appeal,

the

docket

filed

on

her

November

notice

of

23,

2015.

appeal

Because Beauchamp failed to file a timely
and

the

district

court

denied

Beauchamp’s

motion to extend the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

contentions

are

on

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
3