Dr. Marla Faith Crawford v. David Patrick Corrigan; Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1956
DR. MARLA FAITH CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID PATRICK CORRIGAN; HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN &
WELLMAN,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SCHOOL BOARD FOR RICHMOND CITY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00923-JAG)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Marla Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Smith Palmer, HARMAN CLAYTOR
CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Marla Faith Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her
civil complaint for failure to state a claim, and two subsequent orders granting Defendants’
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motion for monetary sanctions and subjecting Crawford to a pre-filing
injunction in future cases. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
With respect to the district court’s order dismissing Crawford’s civil complaint for
failure to state a claim, 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’s order was entered on May 12, 2021. The notice of appeal was
filed on August 27, 2021. Because Crawford failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as to this
order.
As to the district court’s orders granting the Rule 11 motion for sanctions, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

-- 3 of 4 --

4
orders. Crawford v. School Bd. for Richmond City, No. 3:20-cv-00923-JAG (E.D. Va. July
28, 2021). 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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 4 of 4 --