Tanyon Watson v. VA Department for Aging, No. 17-1194 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1194 TANYON WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT FOR AGING & VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES; CARRIE GILBERT, DARS Counselor; DAVIAN MORRELL, DARS Counselor; DOUG JAMES, DARS Regional Director; TERRY BERTSCH; JULIE TRIPLETT, VA Disability Law Center Advocate, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01002-LO-MSN) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tanyon Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Brown Beckner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Steven Michael Traubert, DISABILITY LAW CENTER OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Tanyon Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 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 January 6, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on February 9, 2017. Because Watson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Watson’s motions to appoint counsel and to respond. 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 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.
