Wriglesworth v. Esper, 042219 FED4, 18-2130

Docket Nº:18-2130
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:SONIA IVELISSE WRIGLESWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARK T. ESPER, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.
Attorney:Dennis L. Friedman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:April 22, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

SONIA IVELISSE WRIGLESWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARK T. ESPER, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-2130

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

April 22, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: April 18, 2019

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00252-D)

Dennis L. Friedman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Through counsel, Sonia Wriglesworth, who proceeded pro se in the district court, seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss her civil complaint asserting she was discriminatorily and retaliatorily discharged from her employment. Wriglesworth also appeals the district court's order denying her postjudgment motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which the court construed as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion.[*] Wriglesworth asserts that the district court erred when it granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, and that the court abused its discretion when it construed her motion for leave to amend the complaint as a motion for reconsideration and in not allowing the amendment. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

Where, as here, the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 dismissal...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP