Michael Scott v. Samuel I. White, P.C.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:08-cv-00097-RAJ-JEB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999315091]. Mailed to: Conrad, Scott, Scott. [13-2454]

Appeal: 13-2454

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/13/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2454

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/13/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

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).

timely

of

filing

a

notice

of

jurisdictional requirement.”

appeal

in

a

civil

“[T]he

case

is

a

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

214 (2007).
The

district

court’s

order

dismissing

was entered on the docket on March 14, 2008.

the

The court denied

the motion for relief from judgment on June 5, 2009.
of appeal was filed on November 25, 2013.
failed

to

extension
appeal.

file
or

a

timely

reopening

of

notice
the

of

appeal

appeal

complaint

The notice

Because the Scotts
or

period,

to
we

obtain

dismiss

an
the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2

Appeal: 13-2454

legal
before

Doc: 13

contentions
this

court

Filed: 03/13/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3