Catina Castro v. IKEA

── Catina Castro v. IKEA ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-2246 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-2246 CATINA CASTRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. IKEA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01074-BAH) Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 26, 2026 Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catina Castro, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Carol Ondeck, BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2246 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Catina Castro seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Castro’s employment related claims. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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 14, 2025. Castro filed the notice of appeal on October 14, 2025. Because Castro failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to timely seek an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss this 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