UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1693
In re: WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON,
Appellant,
--------------------------------
WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON,
Debtor – Appellant,
v.
LINDA W. SIMPSON, U. S. Bankruptcy Administrator,
Trustee – Appellee,
and
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Party-in-Interest – Appellee,
and
M&T BANK,
Creditor – Appellee,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00347-RJC)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wellesley K. Clayton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Cox, Jr.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Lacey Meredith Moore, HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Linda Wright Simpson, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
ADMINISTRATOR, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Wellesley K. Clayton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order
converting his case from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 proceeding.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 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’s order was entered on the docket on
November 23, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on June 15,
2016. Because Clayton failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and we dismiss the
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
3