Catina Castro v. Ikea

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2246
CATINA CASTRO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
IKEA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01074-BAH)
Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 26, 2026
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Catina Castro, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Carol Ondeck, BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Catina Castro seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion
to dismiss Castro’s employment related claims. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal as untimely.
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 March 14, 2025. Castro filed the notice of
appeal on October 14, 2025. Because Castro failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
timely seek an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Defendant’s motion
and dismiss this appeal. 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 --