UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2055
PAMELA MELVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
USA TODAY; THE WASHINGTON POST; THE BOSTON GLOBE; CHICAGO
SUN-TIMES; DETROIT FREE PRESS; LOS ANGELES TIMES; THE
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER; TAMPA BAY TIMES; THE DALLAS MORNING
NEWS; THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION; THE STAR-LEDGER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00439-JRS)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, and affirmed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Pamela Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen M. Faraci, Sr.,
LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Leslie Paul Machado,
Laurin Howard Mills, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Alexandria, Virginia;
Bradfute W. Davenport, Jr., TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pamela Melvin appeals the district court’s order of January
20, 2015, dismissing her complaint and a subsequent order
denying her motions to clarify the court’s previous order and
for relief from judgment. We dismiss in part and affirm in
part.
Melvin’s appeal of the district court’s January 20 order is
untimely. 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), 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 dismissing Melvin’s complaint was entered
on the docket on January 20, 2015. The notice of appeal was
filed on September 8, 2015. Because Melvin failed to file a
timely notice of appeal from the January 20, 2015 order, we do
not have jurisdiction to review that order. Accordingly, we
dismiss this portion of the appeal.
As to Melvin’s appeal of the court’s subsequent order
denying her motions to clarify and for relief from judgment, we
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
2
court. Melvin v. USA Today, No. 3:14-cv-00439-JRS (E.D. Va.
July 28, 2015). 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