UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2454
MICHAEL SCOTT; TERRY A. SCOTT,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; DLJ MORTGAGE
CAPITAL, INC.; GE MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC; WELLS FARGO HOME
MORTGAGE, INC., d/b/a America’s Servicing Company; USA BANK,
NA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:08-cv-00097-RAJ-JEB)
Submitted: March 6, 2014 Decided: March 13, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Scott and Terry A. Scott, Appellants Pro Se. Stanley
Graves Barr, Jr., Richard Johan Conrad, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC,
Norfolk, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Scott and Terry A. Scott seek to appeal the
district court’s orders dismissing their complaint and denying
their motion for relief from judgment. 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). If a party timely
files a motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), the time for
filing an appeal runs from the district court’s disposition of
that motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi). “[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 dismissing the complaint
was entered on the docket on March 14, 2008. The court denied
the motion for relief from judgment on June 5, 2009. The notice
of appeal was filed on November 25, 2013. Because the Scotts
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
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3