Marsha Wheeler-Christ v. Montgomery County Maryland, No. 10-2063 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2063 MARSHA E. WHEELER-CHRIST, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND, Defendant Appellee, and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cv-01925-AW) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marsha E. Wheeler-Christ, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Louise Federman Henry, COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Marsha E. Wheeler-Christ seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing her civil complaint. 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, September 15, 2010. The 2010, notice thirty-two of appeal days was filed later. on Because Wheeler-Christ failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an dismiss extension the or appeal. appointment of counsel. reopening We deny of the appeal Wheeler-Christ s period, motion we for 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. DISMISSED 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.