Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
22-1353•Jermaine M. Capel v. Norfolk Public Schools
22-1353Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit20.10.2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1353
JERMAINE M. CAPEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00605-AWA-LRL)
Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 20, 2022
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine M. Capel, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie Patricia Lane, CITY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine M. Capel seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil
action against his former employer. 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 February 25, 2022. Capel filed the notice of
appeal on March 30, 2022. Because Capel 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
Capel’s motion to seal.
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 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.