Tina Jenkins v. MV Transportation, No. 18-1273 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 20, 2018.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1273 TINA JENKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:14-cv-00702-TDC) Submitted: May 22, 2019 Decided: May 24, 2019 Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tina Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Robert R. Niccolini, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tina Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to MV Transportation, Inc., in Jenkins’ employment action. 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 January 25, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed on March 8, 2018. Because Jenkins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Jenkins’ request for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal and deny as moot MV Transportation, Inc.’s motion to strike Jenkins’ 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 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.
