Hinton v. Lanham Ford Motor Company , 312 F. App'x 572 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1774
    DESHANTA HINTON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    LANHAM FORD MOTOR COMPANY; PAUL TIMKO, Special Agent for the
    FBI; KAREN NESTER, Special Agent for the FBI; UNKNOWN FBI
    AGENTS; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Federal Bureau
    of Investigation,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    JOHN DOE, General Manager, Lanham Ford Motor Company,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.      Alexander Williams, Jr., District
    Judge. (8:05-cv-02425-AW)
    Submitted:    February 19, 2009              Decided:   February 23, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    DeShanta Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Henry Henderson, John
    Paul Lynch, MCNAMEE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, KIM, GREENAN & WALKER, PA,
    Greenbelt, Maryland; Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant       United
    States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    DeShanta      Hinton    appeals         from   the     district       court’s
    order denying her motion to extend the time for filing a notice
    of appeal from the district court’s final ruling in Hinton’s 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) proceeding.                  Hinton asserted that she never
    received      notice   of    the   district        court’s     judgment.           However,
    under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), a court may only reopen the time
    to file an appeal in these circumstances when the motion to
    reopen is filed within either 180 days after the judgment or
    order is entered or within seven days after the moving party
    receives notice, whichever is earlier.                       Here, the final order
    was entered on May 16, 2007; Hinton admits that she received
    notice   on    February      14,   2008;        however,     she    did    not    file    her
    motion   to    reopen     until      March      24.     Thus,      because       both    time
    periods in Rule 4(a)(6) had already expired, the district court
    was   without      jurisdiction            to     reopen      the     appeal        period.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.                              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.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1774

Citation Numbers: 312 F. App'x 572

Judges: Agee, Duncan, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 2/23/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023