Edith J. Beauchamp v. State of Maryland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1283
EDITH J. BEAUCHAMP; KCB, minor child of Edith J. Beauchamp;
AJB, minor child of Edith J. Beauchamp; VIRGINIA WALCOTT
BEAUCHAMP, mother of Edith J. Beauchamp,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES; CITY OF GREENBELT; SAMIR MALHOTRA,
Secretary of Human Resources; VAN T. MITCHELL, Secretary of
Health & Mental Hygiene; MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN, City Manager,
City of Greenbelt; SHIREEN BLAIR, Crisis Counselor,
Greenbelt CARES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-02667-TDC)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edith J. Beauchamp, KCB, AJB, Virginia Walcott Beauchamp,
Appellants Pro Se. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Hilma Joy
Munson, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Kevin
Bock Karpinski, Sandra Diana Lee, KARPINSKI, COLARESI &

-- 1 of 3 --

2
KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Edith J. Beauchamp seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing her civil rights action and denying her Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was not timely filed.
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 denying Beauchamp’s Rule 59(e)
motion was entered on the docket on November 23, 2015.
Beauchamp subsequently filed her notice of appeal on
December 31, 2015. Because Beauchamp failed to file a timely
notice of appeal, and the district court denied Beauchamp’s
motion to extend the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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

-- 3 of 3 --