Talia Johnson v. David Byrd
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01052-WO-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court. . [17-1305]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
DAVID V. BYRD, Chief District Court Judge; JEANIE R. HOUSTON,
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE; WILLIAM F. BROOKS, DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE; ANGELA B. PUCKETT, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE; RENEE M.
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-01052-WO-LPA)
Submitted: June 28, 2017
Decided: July 21, 2017
Before TRAXLER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Talia Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, dismissing Johnson’s complaint without prejudice, and denying
her motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. 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 judgment was entered on January 20, 2017. The notice of
appeal was filed on March 9, 2017. Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
Johnson also filed a document seeking to appeal from the magistrate judge’s
memorandum opinion and recommendation. Contrary to Johnson’s argument, this filing
cannot serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(2) because the magistrate judge’s recommendation was clearly interlocutory and
could not have been certified for immediate appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See In re
Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005). In any event, even if Johnson had noted a
timely appeal, she waived her right to appellate review by failing to file specific
objections to the magistrate judge’s memorandum opinion and recommendation. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
Pg: 3 of 3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
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?