Rufus Anderson v. J. A. Piper Roofing Co., No. 23-1984 (4th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1984 RUFUS JULIUS ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. A. PIPER ROOFING CO., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:21-cv-02901-DCC) Submitted: January 30, 2024 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rufus J. C. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: February 2, 2024 PER CURIAM: Rufus Julius Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting Defendant summary judgment on Anderson’s employment discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, and denying Anderson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We dismiss this 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 denying Anderson Rule 59(e) relief on April 13, 2023, and mailed a physical copy of the order to Anderson on June 1, 2023. Anderson filed the underlying notice of appeal on September 18, 2023. Because Anderson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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.
