Jennifer Wilson v. Loancare, LLC, No. 18-2327 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2327 JENNIFER WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOANCARE, LLC, A Servicelink EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Management Company; VIRGINIA Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00466-MSD-LRL) Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Jacqueline Lorraine Thompson, FORD HARRISON LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Loancare, LLC. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jennifer Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, her suit against Loancare, LLC, and the Virginia Employment Commission. 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 September 21. The notice of appeal was filed forty-five days later, on November 5. Because Wilson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and her pending motion for partial default judgment. 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.
