Renee Ferebee v. Intl House of Pancakes, No. 15-2218 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2218 RENEE FEREBEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES, a/k/a Uni-Hop, Inc., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-03817-DKC) Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Renee Ferebee, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Carl Sparks, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Renee Ferebee seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant summary judgment in Ferebee’s civil action in which she alleged Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2017). We dismiss the appeal for lack of 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 August 25, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2015. Because Ferebee 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 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 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.
