Opinion

Cargyle Solomon v. Shareese Kess-Lewis

  • 580 F. App'x 186
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jul 31, 2014
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Niemeyer, Wynn, Diaz
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 32.8%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1397

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-02242-PWG)

Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order dismissing her complaint without prejudice. ∗ 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’s order was entered on the docket

on August 13, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on April 2,

2014. Because Solomon failed to file a timely notice of appeal

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

∗

Although a dismissal without prejudice generally is

interlocutory and not appealable, we conclude that the order

dismissing Solomon’s complaint is an appealable final order as

no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects identified

by the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers

Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993).

2

materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.