Nithya Vinayagam v. Ajay Malpani

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 27, 2023
• Docket: 22-1959
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1959 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1959

NITHYA VINAYAGAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AJAY KUMAR MALPANI; QSI SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00006-DJN)

Submitted: August 31, 2023 Decided: October 27, 2023

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nithya Vinayagam, Appellant Pro Se. Jesse Matthew Bless, BLESS LITIGATION, Georgetown, Massachusetts, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1959 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Nithya Vinayagam appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint

alleging claims arising out of her employment with Defendants. Defendants have moved

to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Vinayagam did not timely file her notice of appeal. The

district court entered the order dismissing Vinayagam’s complaint on July 29, 2022, but

the district court’s 26-page order explaining the reasons for dismissal was not accompanied

by a separate document setting forth the court’s judgment, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

58(a). See Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1987). As a

result, the 30-day appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) began to run 150 days

after entry of the district court’s order on the docket. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c). Because

Vinayagam noted her appeal 41 days after the entry of the district court’s order, her appeal

was timely. See CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Johnson, 977 F.3d 306, 311 (4th Cir. 2020).

We therefore deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Vinayagam v. Malpani, No.

3:22-cv-00006-DJN (E.D. Va. July 29, 2022). 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.

AFFIRMED