Case: 24-20223 Document: 23-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 24-20223 October 15, 2024 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Evia C. Osazuwa, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Walgreens, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CV-3053 ______________________________ Before Jolly, Jones, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* This appeal concerns a pro se litigant’s Title VII claims. She never filed a notice of appeal. Her appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdic- tion.

After filing her charge with the EEOC and obtaining her right to sue, the plaintiff-appellant, Evia C. Osazuwa, filed the instant complaint in the district court asserting an employment claim under Title VII for _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-20223 Document: 23-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2024

No. 24-20223

discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. After failing to file proof of service, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice to timely refilling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Osazuwa, how- ever, filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court granted and reopened the case. Osazuwa again failed to file proof of service, and the dis- trict court again dismissed the case. Osazuwa then filed a motion for recon- sideration, which the district court denied.

Subsequently, the district court docketed another letter from Osazuwa as a “notice of appeal.” The word appeal is never used. Instead, it is clear that Osazuwa was again asking only for reconsideration of the district court’s earlier dismissal: “I am asking you Honorable Judge George C Hanks, to reopen my case once again and give me the right amount of time [. . .] I am requesting for the case to be opened again.” “[I]f no notice of appeal is filed at all, the Court of Appeals lacks ju- risdiction to act. It is well settled that the requirement of a timely notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc.

Co., 459 U.S. 56, 61, 103 S. Ct. 400, 403, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1982) (quoting Browder v. Director, Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 560, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978)). Because Osazuwa has failed to file a notice of appeal, we have no jurisdiction to review the case.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.