Mattie T. Lomax v. Mlc Properties & Management Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 23, 2024*
Decided January 24, 2024
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1475
MATTIE T. LOMAX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MLC PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT
INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 22-cv-04527
Franklin U. Valderrama,
Judge.
O R D E R
Mattie Lomax appeals the dismissal of her complaint related to a 2017 dispute
with the landlord who took over her apartment building. Because Lomax did not timely
appeal, we lack jurisdiction to consider her arguments, and we must dismiss the case.
* The appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this
appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-1475 Page 2
In August 2022, after having unsuccessfully pursued relief in state court, Lomax
sued the property managers of her apartment building in federal district court for
breach of contract, harassment, and causing emotional stress. She attributed the alleged
mistreatment to discrimination based on her race and her status as a recipient of
federally subsidized housing assistance. See generally Fair Housing Act of 1988,
42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3617.
On October 4, 2022, the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice,
citing claim preclusion (the complaint appended documents from the state-court case
on the same subject) and other problems. The court instructed Lomax to file an
amended complaint by November 17; otherwise, it would dismiss the case. Nothing
happened until Lomax filed a motion “to remittitur or amend complaint” on
December 19, 2022. In her motion, she cited Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and generally repeated her allegations. A few days later, on December 21, the
court construed the motion as a request to alter or amend the judgment under
Rule 59(e) but denied the motion because Lomax had not proposed any way of curing
the deficiencies identified in the dismissal order. Months later, on March 9, 2023, Lomax
filed a notice of appeal that designated the December 21, 2022, order denying the
motion to alter or amend the judgment.
We have an obligation to consider jurisdiction on our own initiative, Hamer v.
Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 583 U.S. 17, 20 (2017), and here we lack jurisdiction
over Lomax’s appeal because it is untimely, id. at 19–20. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2107 and
Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal in a civil
case must be filed in the district court within 30 days of the judgment or the order being
appealed. But Lomax did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the date on which
the dismissal order became final. See Davis v. Advoc. Health Ctr. Patient Care Express,
523 F.3d 681, 683 (7th Cir. 2008) (no further order required once time for correction has
elapsed) (citing Otis v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1159, 1165–66 (7th Cir. 1994) (en banc)).
And she did not receive an extension, either by request or by operation of a timely post-
judgment motion. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 4(a)(5), 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). Nor did she timely appeal
the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion: she filed her notice of appeal 78 days after the court
denied it. The district court did not extend the appeal period, see F ED. R. A PP . P. 4(a)(5),
and this court is not empowered to do so, see id. R. 26(b). Accordingly, the single notice
of appeal is not timely as to either the dismissal or the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --