Thomas F. Sweeney v. PETE BUTTIGIEG, Secretary of the Department of Transportation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1675
THOMAS F. SWEENEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant.
v.
PETE BUTTIGIEG, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, In his official capacity
only,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00204-CMH-JFA)
Submitted: October 21, 2022 Decided: November 16, 2022
Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas F. Sweeney, Appellant Pro Se. Peter B. Baumhart, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas F. Sweeney appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion
to dismiss Sweeney’s employment discrimination complaint. Defendant has moved to
dismiss the appeal, arguing that Sweeney did not timely file his notice of appeal. Under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A), a district court order is entered when the “judgment or order is
entered in the civil docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).” See Hughes v.
Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1987). Here, the district court entered
its memorandum opinion and order in the docket on April 19, 2022. As a result, Sweeney
had until June 21, 2022, to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Fed. R.
App. P. 26(a)(1)(C), (6)(B). We therefore conclude that Sweeney’s notice of appeal, filed
on June 21, was timely, and we deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sweeney v. Buttigieg,
No. 1:21-cv-00204-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 18, 2022 & entered Apr. 19, 2022). 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --