UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1433
HELEN CLIETTE HOUEY; EMMANUEL HOUEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TD BANK, N.A., successor by merger to and formerly known as
Carolina First Bank,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
M. KATRINA SMITH,
Movant - Appellant,
v.
STEVEN G. TATE,
Trustee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00225-MR-DLH)
Submitted: August 16, 2013 Decided: August 28, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Katrina Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Norman J. Leonard, Lance P.
Martin, WARD & SMITH, PA, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
M. Katrina Smith, executrix of Helen Cliette Houey’s
estate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting
summary judgment for TD Bank and dismissing Helen and Emmanuel
Houey’s complaint challenging the foreclosure of real property. *
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty 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’s order was entered on the docket
on February 5, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on March
28, 2013. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
*
Smith has not appealed the district court’s denial of her
motion to intervene.
3
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4