Skip to main content

MATOUSEK v. JOHNSTON (2019)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Susan Neal MATOUSEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Melissa JOHNSTON; Virginia Beach Police Department; Sara Chandler; Gregory Turpin, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-1420

Decided: August 30, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Susan Neal Matousek, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Scott Boynton, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; James Arthur Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Susan Neal Matousek seeks to appeal the district court's March 14, 2019, order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss her amended complaint and its March 27, 2019, order ruling on several matters following a postjudgment hearing in a contempt proceeding. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Parties are accorded thirty 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 order dismissing Matousek's amended complaint was entered on the docket on March 14, 2019. The notice of appeal was filed on April 16, 2019. Because Matousek 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 March 14 dismissal order.

With respect to the March 27 order, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The March 27 order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as well.

Matousek has petitioned this court for rehearing en banc, and we treat this petition as a petition for initial hearing en banc and deny it. We also deny Matousek's motions to appoint counsel and suspend cases and dismiss the appeal. 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard