Deborah E. Mapp v. Virginia Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1937
DEBORAH E. MAPP,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH & DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00252-MSD-TEM)
Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: November 5, 2012
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah E. Mapp, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Deborah E. Mapp seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing her complaint for failure to comply with a
court order directing her to pay a $350 filing fee. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was not timely filed.
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 was entered on the docket
on June 15, 2012. Accordingly, the latest day for filing a
timely notice of appeal was Monday, July 16, 2012. Mapp’s
notice of appeal, however, was not received for filing until
Tuesday, July 17, 2012. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). Because Mapp
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we are constrained
to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We also deny leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --