Frederic Washington v. Virginia Union University
Frederic Washington v. Virginia Union University
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1889 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1889
FREDERIC DEON WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA UNION UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00403-RCY)
Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 1, 2025
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederic Deon Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Heidi Elizabeth Siegmund, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1889 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Frederic Deon Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
civil action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 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,
551 U.S. 205, 214(2007).
The district court entered its order on March 24, 2025, and the appeal period expired
on April 23, 2025. Washington filed the notice of appeal on August 1, 2025. Because
Washington failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss and 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished