Sharon Williams v. Horry Georgetown Tech College, No. 14-1968 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1968 SHARON BROWN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HORRY GEORGETOWN TECHNICAL COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:11-cv-00429-MGL) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: December 18, 2014 Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sharon Brown Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Charles J. Boykin, Kenneth A. Davis, Deidre D. Laws, BOYKIN & DAVIS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sharon court’s order Brown denying Williams her seeks motions to to dismissal of her Title VII complaint. appeal the reconsider district the court’s 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 August 13, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on September 15, 2014, thirty-three days later. Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of dispense with contentions the are appeal oral period, argument adequately we dismiss because presented in the the the facts appeal. We and legal materials 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.
