UWA v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS (2021)

Yodagent Wast-teuh Uwa seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court's judgment or order appealed from 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 entered its order on April 3, 2020. Uwa filed the notice of appeal on October 2, 2020.¹ Because Uwa failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.² 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.

DISMISSED

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court's docket indicates that the notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2020, but the notice appears to be stamped as having been filed in the court's Richmond office on October 2, 2020; and Uwa affirmed that she filed it on October 2, 2020.

2.   Although Uwa's notice of appeal stated that she did not receive the district court's order until September 16, 2020, due to her mail being placed in storage by a landlord, the district court's docket indicates that it sent a copy of the order to her on April 3, 2020, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C); and even if her notice of appeal were construed as a motion to reopen the time to appeal, it was filed outside the period in which reopening would be permitted under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.