Connie Howell v. Kelly Services, Inc, No. 15-1744 (4th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1744 CONNIE HOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KELLY SERVICES, INC.; IBM, Defendants – Appellees, and MONICA MURRAY; DAVID DUNCAN; BEN KOTEY; JONATHAN OKAI, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00821-LO-TCB) Submitted: December 18, 2015 Decided: December 23, 2015 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Connie Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Yoora Pak, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, McLean, Virginia; Matthew Frederick Nieman, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Connie Howell seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the agreement. Defendants’ We dismiss motions the to appeal enforce for lack a of settlement jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 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 May 1, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on June 30, 2015. Because Howell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an dismiss the extension or appeal. reopening We deny the of the motion appeal for period, we appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.