UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1810
NACOLE HAUSE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:14-cv-04090-TMC)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Nacole Hause, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edgar McDonald, III,
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nacole Hause seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
granting AstraZeneca, LP’s motion for summary judgment. Hause
also appeals the district court’s orders denying her motion to
seal the record and her motion for reconsideration of that
denial.
In civil actions in which the United States is not a party,
parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of final judgment
to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The district
court may, however, extend the time for filing a notice of
appeal if a party so moves within 30 days after the expiration
of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect
or good cause for the extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The
district court may also reopen the appeal period under certain
conditions. 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).
Hause did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the
district court’s order of judgment and did not seek an extension
of the appeal period until after expiration of the excusable-
neglect period. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to
consider Hause’s appeal of the district court’s order granting
summary judgment, and we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
2
Hause did timely appeal the district court’s denial of her
motion to seal and her motion for reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error in those
orders. Accordingly, we affirm them for the reasons stated by
the district court. Hause v. AstraZeneca, LP, No. 6:14-cv-
04090-TMC (D.S.C. July 13, 2015; Sept. 11, 2015). We deny
Hause’s motion to seal the record on appeal. 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
3