Lesley Barr v. Virginia ABC, No. 17-2016 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2016 LESLEY BARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (VABC); LAURA KATE SHEEHAN, Regional Manager (VABC); BEVERLY ANDERSON, Employee (VABC), Defendants - Appellees, -----------------------------------LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INCORPORATED, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00326-HEH) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lesley Barr, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Flynn Robb, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Omar Francisco Gonzalez-Pagan, New York, New York, Sharon M. McGowan, Washington, D.C., Gregory R. Nevins, LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND, INC., Atlanta, Georgia, for Amicus Curiae. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Lesley Barr seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil rights action. 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 July 28, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on August 30, 2017. Because Barr failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny amicus counsel’s motion to file a reply brief. We grant Barr’s motion to supplement the record. 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.
