# McGill v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 22, 2013 · 505 F. App'x 258

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/815744

## Case

- **Full name:** Mary Jane McGILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 22, 2013
- **Citations:** 505 F. App'x 258
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Shedd, Keenan
- **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/815744

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2033

MARY JANE MCGILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cv-02506-JFM)

Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Jane McGill, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O’Meally, Andrew
G. Scott, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Mary Jane McGill seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners’

motion for summary judgment in her age discrimination action.

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 July 16, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August 22,

2012. Because McGill failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/815744. Public record. Not legal advice.