UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1100
THOMASINA SINGLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TELETECH FACILITIES; CHRISTINA HOLLIDAY; BETTY
SHULL; KIM TISDALE; DARREN CARSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PAUL LANDERS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-00-3381)
Submitted: July 16, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomasina Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Floyd Fisher, George
Andrew Harper, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
The district court accepted the report and recommendation
of the magistrate judge, granted summary judgment, and dismissed
Thomasina Singleton’s employment discrimination action. Singleton
filed a pleading responding to the district court’s order, arguing
the merits of her complaint, and contending she did not receive the
appropriate notice of her right to file objections to the
magistrate judge’s report. The district court docketed this
pleading as a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because Singleton’s pleading failed to comply with
Fed. R. App. P. 3, and as a consequence failed to invoke the
jurisdiction of this court.
Parties are accorded thirty 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). A proper notice of appeal must specify the
parties to the case, the order appealed from, and the court to
which the appeal is taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Singleton’s
post-judgment pleading filed in the district court fails to comply
with this rule. It fails to mention a court of appeals and lacks
any reference to an intent to appeal. To the contrary, the
document evinces a desire for continued litigation before the
district court and the magistrate judge.
- 3 -
Because Singleton failed to invoke the jurisdiction of
this court, we dismiss the appeal.* We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
We also note that to the extent that Singleton’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis or her informal brief could be
construed as a notice of appeal, both were untimely. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
- 4 -