Perteacher Drone v. James Duff

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1935 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1935 PERTEACHER DRONE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES DUFF, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts; REBECCA BEACH SMITH, Chief Judge, in her official capacity as United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia; MARY ANNE VOGEL, then Chief United States Probation Officer, in her official capacity as Chief Probation Officer for the Eastern District of Virginia; MARY K. FARASHAHI, then Acting Chief Probation Officer, in her official capacity as Chief Probation Officer; VELMA K. BENNS, In his individual capacity as Supervisory Probation Officer; DANIEL GUERTLER, in his individual and official capacity as Supervisory Probation Officer; DEBORAH CRAMER, in her official capacity as Employment Dispute Resolution Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00332-JAG) Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025 Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1935 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Perteacher Drone, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1935 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Perteacher Drone seeks to appeal the district court’s granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Drone’s wrongful termination claims. We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, 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 entered its order on December 29, 2017, and the appeal period expired on February 27, 2018. Drone filed the notice of appeal on August 29, 2024. Because Drone failed to file a timely notice of appeal and failed to obtain permission to extend or reopen the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Drone’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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