Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006 v. Yvonne Dove

Filing 920090814

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1462

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-6; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiffs - Appellees, and MARK EDWARD FRUTROVSKY; FISCHER LAW GROUP, PLLC, Plaintiffs, v. YVONNE DOVE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-02064-PJM)

Submitted:

July 16, 2009

Decided:

August 14, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yvonne Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Daniel Cohen, BIERMAN GEESING & WARD, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Yvonne orders remanding Dove the seeks case to to appeal state the district and court's denying

court

reconsideration of that order.

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). Browder This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)

(quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)); accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, __, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363-66 (2007). The appeal period is stayed by a motion for

reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), if filed no later than ten days following entry of the judgment. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). 59(e) motion, however, does not stay the See Fed.

An untimely Rule appeal period.

Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001). The district court's order remanding the case was

entered on the docket on December 30, 2008.

Dove did not file

her motion for reconsideration until January 15, 2009, one day beyond the expiration of the ten-day period. That motion,

therefore, did not stay the appeal period.

As the notice of

appeal was filed on April 20, 2009, almost three months beyond 2

the expiration of the thirty-day appeal period, and Dove failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court's order

remanding the case to state court. portion of the appeal. Turning reconsideration, to Dove the has district failed to

We therefore dismiss this

court's challenge

order on

denying the

appeal

court's basis for denying reconsideration.

We therefore find See 4th court's

that Dove has forfeited appellate review of that order. Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the district

order denying reconsideration of the remand order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

3