DeShanta Hinton v. Lanham Ford Motor Company, No. 08-1774 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1774 DESHANTA HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LANHAM FORD MOTOR COMPANY; PAUL TIMKO, Special Agent for the FBI; KAREN NESTER, Special Agent for the FBI; UNKNOWN FBI AGENTS; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants Appellees, and JOHN DOE, General Manager, Lanham Ford Motor Company, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:05-cv-02425-AW) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. DeShanta Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Henry Henderson, John Paul Lynch, MCNAMEE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, KIM, GREENAN & WALKER, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland; Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. United Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: DeShanta Hinton appeals from the district court s order denying her motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from the district court s final ruling in Hinton s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) proceeding. received notice of the Hinton asserted that she never district court s judgment. However, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), a court may only reopen the time to file an appeal in these circumstances when the motion to reopen is filed within either 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within seven days after the moving party receives notice, whichever is earlier. Here, the final order was entered on May 16, 2007; Hinton admits that she received notice on February motion to reopen 14, 2008; however, until March 24. she Thus, did not because file both her time periods in Rule 4(a)(6) had already expired, the district court was without jurisdiction to reopen the appeal Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. period. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.