Nedra Carr-Stephenson v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., No. 13-2430 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 5, 2014.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2430 NEDRA CARR-STEPHENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC., OfficeMax Store #562, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00075-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: March 31, 2014 and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nedra Carr-Stephenson, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan K. Meals, DAVEY & BROGAN, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nedra court s order Carr-Stephenson dismissing state a claim. her seeks civil to appeal complaint the for district failure to 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 October 21, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on November 22, Carr-Stephenson 2013. Because failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Stephenson s informal facts brief. and materials motion legal before to We file dispense an We deny as moot Carr- addendum/attachment with oral argument contentions are adequately this and argument court to her because the presented would not in the 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.
