Shraddha Patel v. Kirit Patel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to defer [1000244832-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [1000244832-3] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00598-TSE-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000313590]. Mailed to: Atul Patel, Kirit Patel, Krupa Patel, Nina Patel. [18-1022]

Appeal: 18-1022

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/18/2018

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1022

SHRADDHA PATEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KIRIT PATEL, a/k/a Kiritkumar Ambalal Patel; KRUPA PATEL; ATUL PATEL,
a/k/a Atulkumar Ambalal Patel, a/k/a Atulkumar Arvindbhai Patel; NINA PATEL,
a/k/a Nayna Patel,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PRABUDAS AMBALAL PATEL; NISHA PATEL, a/k/a Nisha Prabudas Patel;
MANU PATEL; SURESH PATEL,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00598-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: June 14, 2018

Decided: June 18, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 18-1022

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/18/2018

Pg: 2 of 4

Lawrence John Joseph, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Kirit Patel, Krupa Patel, Atul
Patel, Nina Patel, Appellees Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 18-1022

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/18/2018

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Shraddha Patel appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for an enlargement
of time to file an appeal. Patel contends that the district court improperly construed her
motion as one under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), and that she is entitled to an extension of
time under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Patel also seeks to appeal various orders leading up
to and including the final order entered on August 21, 2017. We affirm in part and
dismiss in part.
With regard to the district court’s order denying Patel’s motion to extend the
appeal period, we have reviewed the record and Patel’s arguments on appeal and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to extend the appeal
period for the reasons stated by the district court. Patel v. Patel, No. 1:15-cv-00598TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 1, 2017, & entered Dec. 4, 2017).
Turning to Patel’s appeal of the remaining orders, 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 final order was entered on the docket on August 21, 2017.
Patel filed her notice of appeal on December 29, 2017. Because Patel failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal of the remaining orders for lack of jurisdiction.
3

Appeal: 18-1022

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/18/2018

Pg: 4 of 4

We deny Patel’s motions to defer and for preparation of transcripts at government
expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4