Katherine Robinson v. DepÂ’t of Justice Drug Enforcement, No. 15-1937 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1937 KATHERINE B. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DRUG ENFORCEMENT (DOJ/DEA); VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, ADMINISTRATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00475-JCC-MSN) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine B. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Melissa Elaine Goforth Koenig, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Katherine incarcerated, granting Robinson, seeks the to a pro appeal Department of se the litigant district Justice/Drug who is court’s not order Enforcement Administration’s unopposed motion to dismiss her civil claims against it. We dismiss the appeal. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 June 3, 2015, but Robinson did not file her notice of appeal until August 14, 2015. Because Robinson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 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 * To the extent that Robinson seeks to appeal the portion of the district court’s order remanding back to the Virginia state court from where they were removed her claims against the Virginia Employment Commission, that holding is not reviewable on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the 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.
