Pamela Diz v. Rebecca Martin, No. 18-1172 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 18, 2018.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1172 PAMELA DIZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REBECCA MARTIN, Owner Financer; FRANCIS TACY; JEFF TACY; SERGIO DE SOUSA; ADAM BULL, Attorney; SABRINA DIZ; KELLY MARLER, Social Worker; LARAMIE COLLINS; BRITNEY SHULTZ; REGENERATION STATION; JONATHAN MCELROY, Attorney; ASHEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; MISSION HOSPITAL AFFILIATES; MCINTOSH LAW FIRM, Attorneys; STORMY SPICER; LOUIS VEGA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00319-MR-DLH) Submitted: August 17, 2018 Decided: September 7, 2018 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela Diz, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Donald Gulden, PATLA, STRAUS, ROBINSON & MOORE, PA, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pamela Diz seeks to appeal from the district court’s order sua sponte dismissing her civil complaint as frivolous. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty 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 December 29, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on February 8, 2018. Because Diz 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 as moot Diz’s two pending motions to appoint counsel, her motion to supplement evidence in support of her claim, and her motion to file an addendum to her informal brief. 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 ∗ On July 20, 2018, the district court entered an order denying Diz’s motion to extend the appeal period. 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.
