Emmanuel Uzoma v. Barclays Bank, PLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999389363-2]; granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999395407-2], granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999398788-2] Originating case number: 8:13-cv-00977-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999424908].. [14-1630]

Appeal: 14-1630

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1630

EMMANUEL UZOMA; EMELIA UZOMA,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
BARCLAYS, PLC; EQUIFIRST CORPORATION; THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON TRUST; COMPANY; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., other JP
Morgan Chase, NA; HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION, d/b/a
Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., d/b/a Ocwen Loan
Servicing,
LLC,
other
Homeq
Corporation;
STATEBRIDGE
COMPANY, LLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL REAL ESTATE, INC.; OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cv-00977-RWT)

Submitted:

August 20, 2014

Decided:

August 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Uzoma, Emelia Uzoma, Appellants Pro Se. David Block
Bergman, ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Chad King, John
Sears Simcox, SIMCOX & BARCLAY, Annapolis, Maryland; Christopher
Michele Corchiarino, GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH & DANN, LLP,

Appeal: 14-1630

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Baltimore, Maryland; Joshua Tropper, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1630

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/28/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel and Emelia Uzoma seek to appeal the district
court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss their
civil action.

Defendants have moved to 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 March 27, 2014.
2014.

The notice of appeal was filed on June 24,

Because Appellants failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
we

grant

the

jurisdiction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

motions

to

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
3