Katherine Robinson v. DOJ-Department of Justice, No. 17-1156 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1156 KATHERINE B. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOJ-DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION, OF JUSTICE; DEA-DRUG ENFORCEMENT Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-01945-RWT) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 22, 2017 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine B. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Katherine B. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, on Robinson’s claims alleging she was harassed and retaliated against during her federal employment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 March 25, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on February 2, 2017. Because Robinson 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
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.
