Toni McElveen v. Vonda Hardy, No. 14-1446 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1446 CURVES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, and CURVES OF WALKERTON; JOHN DOES 1-10, individuals whose identities are as of yet unknown; TEAM WRIGHT LOSS GURU, LLC; ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, and TONI MCELVEEN, Defendant - Appellant, v. VONDA HARDY; BARRY HARDY; BARVON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cv-00456-WO-JEP) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: July 28, 2014 Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Toni McElveen, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Hartsoe, HARTSOE & ASSOCIATES, PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Toni McElveen default judgment seeks against her to appeal under Fed. from R. the Civ. entry P. of a 55(b)(2) following her failure to plead or otherwise defend against the third-party civil action and cross-claims commenced against her by Vonda Hardy, We dismiss the Barry appeal Hardy, for and lack of BarVon Enterprises, jurisdiction because LLC. 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. The Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). district court s docket on March 31, 2014. May 2, 2014. judgment was entered on the The notice of appeal was filed on Because McElveen 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 with oral argument because the facts 3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
