Helen Houey v. TD Bank, N.A.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00225-MR-DLH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999182328]. Mailed to: Norman J. Leonard, M. Katrina Smith. [13-1433]

Appeal: 13-1433

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/28/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 13-1433

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/28/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appeal: 13-1433

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/28/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

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.
28, 2013.

The notice of appeal was filed on March

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

Appeal: 13-1433

Doc: 18

Filed: 08/28/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED

4