Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., No. 16-1771 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 19, 2016.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1771 CYNTHIA ROSEBERRY-ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC., DIAMOND PET FOODS, INC., d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods, Inc.; Pet Foods, Inc.; Defendants – Appellees. No. 17-1167 CYNTHIA ROSEBERRY-ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC., DIAMOND PET FOODS, INC., d/b/a Diamond Defendants – Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George J. Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-01503-GJH) Submitted: March 9, 2017 Decided: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. March 14, 2017 No. 16-1771 dismissed; No. 17-1167 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Mark J. Strong, LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN P. STEBENNE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In seeks these to consolidated appeal complaint the without enlargement of appeals, district court’s prejudice the Cynthia and appeal period. Roseberry-Andrews orders denying We her grant dismissing motion the for her an Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal and dismiss the appeal in No. 161771 for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and the district court denied Andrews’ motion to enlarge the appeal period. Roseberry- We affirm the court’s order in No. 17-1167 denying Roseberry-Andrews’ motion to enlarge the appeal period. Parties are accorded 30 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 May 2, 2016. the The notice of appeal was filed on July 1, 2016, beyond 30-day appeal period. The court subsequently Roseberry-Andrews’ motion to enlarge the appeal period. denied Because Roseberry-Andrews failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant 3 the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal in No. 16-1771. We review the denial of a motion to enlarge the time to appeal for abuse of discretion. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 532 (4th Cir. 1996) (reviewing district court’s denial of motion for an enlargement of time to file an appeal for abuse of discretion). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion denying RoseberryAndrews’ motion for an enlargement of time to file an appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order in No. 17-1167. We grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal in No. 16-1771. No. 17-1167. We affirm the district court’s order in 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. No. 16-1771 DISMISSED; No. 17-1167 AFFIRMED 4

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.