UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1192
MICHAEL A. SCOTT; TERRY 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, INCORPORATED, 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: July 30, 2015 Decided: August 13, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Michael A. Scott and Terry Scott, Appellants Pro Se. Stanley
Graves Barr, Jr., Christy Lee Murphy, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC,
Norfolk, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Scott and Terry Scott appeal three district
court orders. Insofar as the Scotts appeal the court’s March
14, 2008, order and judgment dismissing their complaint, we
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), a party in a civil action has 30
days to file a notice of appeal after entry of judgment. “[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 Scotts did not file their appeal until February
18, 2015. Because their appeal from the March 14, 2008, order
and judgment is untimely, we are without jurisdiction and must
dismiss in part this appeal. We reject the Scotts’ claim that
the court’s December 23, 2014, order reopened the appeal period.
Insofar as the Scotts challenge the district court’s
December 23, 2014, and February 4, 2015, orders, we affirm. We
conclude that the Scotts’ arguments regarding the removal of
their civil action are without merit. We also conclude that the
June 5, 2009, order was not void under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(4). Also, we deny the Scotts’ petition for a
writ of mandamus.
Accordingly, we grant the Scotts’ motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny their petition for a writ of
mandamus, and dismiss in part and affirm in part. We dispense
2
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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3