Jeannette Santini v. Adventure Tours by Dawn

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1093 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1093 JEANNETTE SOTO SANTINI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ADVENTURE TOURS BY DAWN; ERICA TUCKER-LAYS; TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA/FAIRFAX CONNECTOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02008-MSN-WBP) Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 29, 2025 Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeannette Santini, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1093 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jeannette Soto Santini seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order denying Santini’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is immediately appealable. Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950). However, we lack jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on November 22, 2024, and the appeal period therefore expired on Monday, December 23, 2024. Santini filed the notice of appeal on January 24, 2025. Because Santini failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of 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 2