Jewel D. Hill v. Nissa N. Muwwakkil

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1477
JEWEL D. HILL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NISSA N. MUWWAKKIL,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00915-HEH)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Jewel D. Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jewel D. Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders (1) dismissing her civil action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) denying her motion
for extension of time to file a notice of appeal; and (3)
denying her motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal
in part and affirm in part.
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 Hill’s action
was entered on the docket on February 1, 2011. Over thirty days
later, on March 23, 2011, Hill filed both a motion for extension
of time to file a notice of appeal and a notice of appeal. The
district court denied Hill’s motion for extension of time
because she failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good
cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i). Because Hill failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal in part.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Moreover, because we agree that Hill failed to
demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause, we affirm the
district court’s order denying her motion for extension of time.
Finally, we affirm the district court’s order denying Hill’s
motion for reconsideration.
We deny Hill’s motions to certify questions to the
United States Attorney General and the Virginia Attorney
General. 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.
DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --