UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1771
CYNTHIA ROSEBERRY-ANDREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC., d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods, Inc.;
DIAMOND PET FOODS, INC.,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 17-1167
CYNTHIA ROSEBERRY-ANDREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC., d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods, Inc.;
DIAMOND PET FOODS, INC.,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(8:15-cv-01503-GJH)
Submitted: March 9, 2017 Decided: March 14, 2017
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
No. 16-1771 dismissed; No. 17-1167 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Mark J. Strong,
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN P. STEBENNE, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews
seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing her
complaint without prejudice and denying her motion for an
enlargement of the appeal period. We grant the Appellees’
motion to dismiss the appeal and dismiss the appeal in No. 16-
1771 for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed and the district court denied Roseberry-
Andrews’ motion to enlarge the appeal period. We affirm the
court’s order in No. 17-1167 denying Roseberry-Andrews’ motion
to enlarge the appeal period.
Parties are accorded 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 the docket on May
2, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on July 1, 2016, beyond
the 30-day appeal period. The court subsequently denied
Roseberry-Andrews’ motion to enlarge the appeal period. Because
Roseberry-Andrews failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant
3
the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal in No.
16-1771.
We review the denial of a motion to enlarge the time to
appeal for abuse of discretion. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 532 (4th Cir. 1996) (reviewing
district court’s denial of motion for an enlargement of time to
file an appeal for abuse of discretion). We conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion denying Roseberry-
Andrews’ motion for an enlargement of time to file an appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order in No. 17-1167.
We grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the
appeal in No. 16-1771. We affirm the district court’s order in
No. 17-1167. 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.
No. 16-1771 DISMISSED;
No. 17-1167 AFFIRMED
4