Case Information
*2 Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
No. 24-1211, dismissed; No. 24-1921, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Valerie L. Bateman, Heather A. Benjamin, NEW SOUTH LAW FIRM, Carrboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Alice Tejada, CITY OF RALEIGH, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Patrick D. Lands seeks to challenge multiple orders entered in the underlying action alleging retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654. In Appeal No. 24-1211, Lands seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant summary judgment on Lands’ retaliation claim. Defendant moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely. In Appeal No. 24-1921, Lands challenges the district court’s order denying Lands’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the court’s order denying Lands’ motion for an extension of time to appeal, filed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). We dismiss in Appeal No. 24-1211 and affirm in Appeal No. 24-1921.
In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order granting Defendant summary judgment on February 7, 2024, and the appeal period expired on March 8, 2024. Lands, who was represented by counsel in the district court, filed the notice of appeal on March 9, 2024. Because Lands failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss as to Appeal No. 24-1211.
Although Lands timely appealed from the district court’s order denying Rule 60(b) relief, we have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion by the district court. *4 See Justus v. Clarke , 78 F.4th 97, 104 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review), cert. denied sub nom. Dotson v. Justus , 144 S. Ct. 1096 (2024). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order in Appeal No. 24-1921. Lands v. City of Raleigh , No. 5:21-cv-00491- BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2024). 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. 24-1211 – DISMISSED; No. 24-1921 – AFFIRMED