USCA11 Case: 23-10392 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-10392 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DONNA THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BLACK PEARL INVESTMENTS, LLC, d.b.a. Massage Envy Spa Woodstock, MALISSA CHAPMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia USCA11 Case: 23-10392 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM: Donna Thomas appeals the district court’s September 6, 2022 entry of judgment and its December 2, 2022 order denying reconsideration of the judgment. Upon review of the record, the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional question, and appellees Black Pearl Investments, LLC and Malissa Chapman’s motion to dismiss Thomas’s appeal as untimely, we GRANT the appellees’ motion and DISMISS this appeal.

First, Thomas’s notice of appeal is not timely to appeal the September 6, 2022 judgment. Thomas’s October 5, 2022 motion for reconsideration was untimely to toll the time to appeal the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), (iv) (providing that a timely-filed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion tolls the ap- peal period); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (providing that a Rule 59 motion must be filed within 28 days after the entry of judgment). Accord- ingly, Thomas had until October 6, 2022, which was 30 days after the district court entered judgment, to appeal it. 28 U.S.C. §

USCA11 Case: 23-10392 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 3 of 4

23-10392 Opinion of the Court 3 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days after entry of the judg- ment or order appealed from). However, Thomas did not file her notice of appeal until February 2, 2023.

Second, Thomas’s notice of appeal is untimely to appeal the district court’s December 2, 2022 denial of her October 5, 2022 mo- tion for reconsideration. Her December 16, 2022 “Response to Or- der” did not effectively seek reconsideration of the December 2 or- der and thus did not toll the time to appeal that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), (iv); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Finch v. Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258 (11th Cir. 1988). Unlike Thomas’s October 5, 2022 motion for reconsideration, her “Response to Order” was not styled as a motion for reconsideration, did not expressly state that she was moving for reconsideration, expressed her intent to appeal to a higher court, and did not ask the district court to do anything other than remove a statement from the record as explained in her mo- tion for retraction. Additionally, Thomas filed the “Response to Order” within the 14-day period that the December 2 order di- rected her to explain the relief she sought in her motion for retrac- tion, and she addressed the retraction motion in her response. Ac- cordingly, because Thomas’s “Response to Order” did not seek re- consideration of the district court’s December 2 order denying re- consideration, it was not a tolling motion, and she had until Janu- ary 3, 2023 to appeal from that order. Because Thomas did not file her notice of appeal until February 2, 2023, it also is untimely to appeal from the December 2 order.

USCA11 Case: 23-10392 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 4 of 4