Maria Chante Morris v. Sas Institute, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1664
MARIA CHANTE MORRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAS INSTITUTE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cv-00269-D)
Submitted: October 17, 2019 Decided: October 21, 2019
Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maria Chante Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Ceglowski, POYNER SPRUILL
LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Maria Chante Morris seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her sexual
harassment and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2019), against SAS Institute,
Inc. (SAS). SAS has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We grant SAS’ motion to
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 was entered on the docket on May 14, 2019. Morris filed
her notice of appeal on June 17, 2019. Because Morris failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant SAS’ motion
and dismiss the appeal. We deny Morris’ application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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

-- 2 of 2 --