Marla Crawford v. David Corrigan, No. 21-1956 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1956 DR. MARLA FAITH CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID PATRICK CORRIGAN; HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Defendants - Appellees, and SCHOOL BOARD FOR RICHMOND CITY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00923-JAG) Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marla Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Smith Palmer, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Dr. Marla Faith Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint for failure to state a claim, and two subsequent orders granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motion for monetary sanctions and subjecting Crawford to a pre-filing injunction in future cases. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. With respect to the district court’s order dismissing Crawford’s civil complaint for failure to state a claim, 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’s order was entered on May 12, 2021. The notice of appeal was filed on August 27, 2021. Because Crawford failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as to this order. As to the district court’s orders granting the Rule 11 motion for sanctions, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 3 orders. Crawford v. School Bd. for Richmond City, No. 3:20-cv-00923-JAG (E.D. Va. July 28, 2021). 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 PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 4
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.
