Carla Lewis v. Marilyn Khadduri, No. 20-2038 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-2038 CARLA T. LEWIS, a/k/a Carla Lewis, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARILYN K. KHADDURI, trading as The Marilyn Khadduri Company; TRISTONE PROPERTIES LLC; DANIEL KHADDURI; KHADDURI ENTERPRISE, INC., trading as Majid D. Khadduri, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cv-00545-JAG) Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carla T. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Lynn McGovern, PARRISH SNEAD FRANKLIN SIMPSON, PLC, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carla T. Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding her case to Richmond County Circuit Court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. * In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on August 19, 2020. Lewis filed the notice of appeal on September 23, 2020. Because Lewis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We further deny Lewis’ “motion for entry of judgment,” “motion to stable probate,” “motion to claim equity [and] cash,” and “motion for no more filing by the [Appellees].” We further deny Appellees’ motions for attorney’s fees and costs. 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 In any event, we lack jurisdiction to review the remand order because it was based on the district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008). * 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.
