Perteacher Drone v. JAMES DUFF, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1935
PERTEACHER DRONE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES DUFF, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts;
REBECCA BEACH SMITH, Chief Judge, in her official capacity as United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia; MARY ANNE VOGEL, then
Chief United States Probation Officer, in her official capacity as Chief Probation
Officer for the Eastern District of Virginia; MARY K. FARASHAHI, then Acting
Chief Probation Officer, in her official capacity as Chief Probation Officer; VELMA
K. BENNS, In his individual capacity as Supervisory Probation Officer; DANIEL
GUERTLER, in his individual and official capacity as Supervisory Probation
Officer; DEBORAH CRAMER, in her official capacity as Employment Dispute
Resolution Coordinator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00332-JAG)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025
Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Perteacher Drone, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States
Attorney, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Perteacher Drone seeks to appeal the district court’s granting Defendant’s motion
to dismiss Drone’s wrongful termination claims. We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice
of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 December 29, 2017, and the appeal period
expired on February 27, 2018. Drone filed the notice of appeal on August 29, 2024.
Because Drone failed to file a timely notice of appeal and failed to obtain permission to
extend or reopen the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Drone’s motion
for appointment of counsel.
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

-- 3 of 3 --