Jennifer Taylor v. E. McDevitt, No. 21-1622 (4th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1622 JENNIFER RAQUEL TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. E. H. MCDEVITT, Officer; K. LIEDKIE, Officer; SCOTT PITTS; ROY LONG HARTIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00196-KDB-DSC) Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer Raquel Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jennifer Raquel Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on April 9, 2021. Taylor filed her notice of appeal on May 26, 2021. Because Taylor failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Taylor’s motion for default judgment 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.