Diann James v. Verizon, No. 11-1921 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1921 DIANN B. JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VERIZON; KENNA ASHLEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-02136-AW) Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Diann B. James, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Dorothy Fegan, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Amy Elizabeth Miller, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Diann B. James seeks to appeal the district court s order denying her motion to alter or amend its earlier grant of summary judgment to Defendants. found no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. James v. Verizon, No. 8:09-cv-02136-AW (D. Md. Aug. 2, 2011). 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. AFFIRMED To the extent that James also challenges, in her informal brief, the district court s underlying grant of summary judgment, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider those arguments. Because the post-judgment motion was not timely filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), it did not toll James appeal period. Further, the district court did not extend or reopen the appeal period. James notice of appeal was therefore untimely as to the order granting summary judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within thirty days of judgment or order). An untimely notice of appeal in a civil case divests this court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001). 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.