PATEL v. Prabudas Ambalal Patel; Nisha Patel, a/k/a Nisha Prabudas Patel; Manu Patel; Suresh Patel, Defendants. (2018)

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, 283 F.Supp.3d 512 (E.D. Va. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (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.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.