Mary McGill v. Board of School Commissioners, No. 12-2033 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2033 MARY JANE MCGILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-02506-JFM) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Jane McGill, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O Meally, Andrew G. Scott, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mary Jane McGill seeks to appeal the district court s order granting Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners motion for summary judgment in her age discrimination action. 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 July 16, 2012. 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August 22, Because McGill failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.
