Harris v. Rumsfeld, No. 06-1645 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1645 GLORIA G. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (2:04-cv-00545-WDK) Submitted: October 23, 2006 Decided: November 29, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria G. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Scott Tyler, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Cleveland, Ohio, Anita K. Henry, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gloria G. Harris seeks to appeal the district court s order granting summary judgment to Defendant on her claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 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 sixty 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). mandatory and jurisdictional. This appeal period is Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court s order was entered on the docket on March 31, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on May 31, 2006, one day out of time. Because Harris 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 the 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.