# Cargyle Solomon v. Shareese Kess-Lewis

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 27, 2014 · 563 F. App'x 228

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2658110

## Case

- **Full name:** Cargyle Brown SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shareese KESS-LEWIS; Randolph T. Lewis, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 27, 2014
- **Citations:** 563 F. App'x 228
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Keenan, Per Curiam, Wynn
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2658110

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2518

CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHAREESE KESS-LEWIS; RANDOLPH T. LEWIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (1:13-
cv-01952-PWG)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cargyle Brown Solomon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Cargyle Brown Solomon seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders dismissing her complaint and denying in part her

motion to seal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

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 (2007).

The district court entered its order dismissing the

complaint on July 18, 2013, and its order ruling on the motion

to seal on September 3, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on

December 12, 2013. Because Solomon failed to file a timely

notice of appeal from either order 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 adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2658110. Public record. Not legal advice.