Nedra Carr-Stephenson v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., No. 13-2430 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 31, 2014.
Download PDF
ON REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2430 NEDRA CARR-STEPHENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC., OfficeMax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: July 21, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: and HAMILTON and August 5, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Panel rehearing granted, en banc rehearing denied, and affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order granting complaint. raised in Carr-Stephenson Defendant s appeals motion the to district dismiss court s her civil On appeal, we confine our review to the issues the Appellant s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Carr-Stephenson does not challenge in her informal brief the basis for forfeited appellate Accordingly, dispense the we with contentions are district review affirm oral of disposition, she has argument the court s order. Id. district the adequately court s court s judgment. We because presented the in the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PANEL REHEARING GRANTED; EN BANC REHEARING DENIED; AFFIRMED In an opinion issued on March 31, 2014, we dismissed CarrStephenson s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that her notice of appeal was untimely filed. Carr-Stephenson then filed a petition for en banc rehearing that persuades us she timely filed a notice of appeal that did not appear in the electronic record. Accordingly, although we deny CarrStephenson s petition for rehearing en banc, we grant panel rehearing, and conclude that Carr-Stephenson did in fact file a timely notice of appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the prior opinion and issue this opinion in its stead. 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.
