Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999931963-2] in 16-1771 Originating case number: 8:15-cv-01503-GJH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000041818]. Mailed to: Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews. [16-1771, 17-1167]

Appeal: 16-1771

Doc: 28

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1771

CYNTHIA ROSEBERRY-ANDREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC.,
DIAMOND PET FOODS, INC.,

d/b/a

Diamond

Pet

Foods,

Inc.;

Pet

Foods,

Inc.;

Defendants – Appellees.

No. 17-1167

CYNTHIA ROSEBERRY-ANDREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC.,
DIAMOND PET FOODS, INC.,

d/b/a

Diamond

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(8:15-cv-01503-GJH)

Submitted:

March 9, 2017

Decided:

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

March 14, 2017

Appeal: 16-1771

Doc: 28

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

No. 16-1771 dismissed; No. 17-1167 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews, Appellant Pro Se.
Mark J. Strong,
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN P. STEBENNE, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1771

Doc: 28

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In
seeks

these

to

consolidated

appeal

complaint

the

without

enlargement

of

appeals,

district

court’s

prejudice

the

Cynthia

and

appeal

period.

Roseberry-Andrews

orders

denying
We

her
grant

dismissing
motion
the

for

her
an

Appellees’

motion to dismiss the appeal and dismiss the appeal in No. 161771 for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not

timely

filed

and

the

district

court

denied

Andrews’ motion to enlarge the appeal period.

Roseberry-

We affirm the

court’s order in No. 17-1167 denying Roseberry-Andrews’ motion
to enlarge the appeal period.
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 May
2, 2016.
the

The notice of appeal was filed on July 1, 2016, beyond

30-day

appeal

period.

The

court

subsequently

Roseberry-Andrews’ motion to enlarge the appeal period.

denied
Because

Roseberry-Andrews failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant
3

Appeal: 16-1771

Doc: 28

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal in No.
16-1771.
We review the denial of a motion to enlarge the time to
appeal for abuse of discretion.

See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de

Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 532 (4th Cir. 1996) (reviewing
district court’s denial of motion for an enlargement of time to
file an appeal for abuse of discretion).

We conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion denying RoseberryAndrews’ motion for an enlargement of time to file an appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order in No. 17-1167.
We grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the
appeal in No. 16-1771.
No. 17-1167.

We affirm the district court’s order in

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.
No. 16-1771 DISMISSED;
No. 17-1167 AFFIRMED

4