USCA4 Appeal: 24-1990 Doc: 46 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1990

JEROME ANDREW BURNETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ALDI INC., Maryland,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00376-JRR)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 27, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Andrew Burnett, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1990 Doc: 46 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Andrew Burnett seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) granting

Defendant’s motion to dismiss Burnett’s multiple employment related claims, including

claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e

to 2000e-17, and the American with Disabilities Act,

to 12213; and

(2) denying Burnett’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Burnett has also filed a “Motion for

42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 93-219 – Preponderance of the evidence of May

17, 2025.” (ECF No. 29 at 1). We dismiss the appeal for lack of 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,

(2007).

The district court entered its order denying the Rule 59(e) motion on May 7, 2024,

and the appeal period expired on June 6, 2024. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A),

(a)(4)(A)(iv). Burnett filed the notice of appeal on October 4, 2024. Because Burnett failed

to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we dismiss the appeal. We deny the pending motion as moot.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1990 Doc: 46 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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