Sheila Andrews v. UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT HOMES, INC., d/b/a Cypress Glen Retirement Community

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1007
SHEILA ANDREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT HOMES, INC., d/b/a Cypress Glen
Retirement Community,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Elizabeth City. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (2:21-cv-00044-M)
Submitted: November 14, 2023 Decided: January 8, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sheila Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Paul S. Holscher, Savannah Trimmer, OGLETREE
DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sheila Andrews seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting her former
employer, United Methodist Retirement Homes, Inc. (“UMRH”), summary judgment in
Andrews’ civil action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101 to 12213. 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 dispositive order on November 23, 2022. Andrews
filed her notice of appeal on December 30, 2022—after expiration of the 30-day appeal
period, but within the period for seeking an extension of the time to appeal. We thus
remanded for the district court to determine whether Andrews demonstrated excusable
neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. On remand, the district
court concluded that Andrews had not. Accordingly, we now grant UMRH’s motion and
dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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 --