Jane Dern v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 17-1959 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1959 JANE DERN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Safeco Insurance Company of America, Defendant - Appellee, v. SASSCER, CLAGETT & BUCHER, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-01737-GJH) Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jane Dern, Appellant Pro Se. Kayleigh Toth Keilty, Patricia McHugh Lambert, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jane Dern seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion to reopen her case. 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 May 22, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on August 16, 2017. Because Dern 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, grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, 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 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.