Thornell Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-02536-GJH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999683788]. [14-2289]

Appeal: 14-2289

Doc: 45

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2289

THORNELL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-02536-GJH)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dmitry Balannik, TOUCHSTONE LAW FIRM, LLC, Rockville, Maryland,
for Appellant. Craig R. Haughton, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2289

Doc: 45

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Thornell Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting

defendant’s

complaint.

We

motion

dismiss

to

the

dismiss

appeal

for

and,
lack

dismissing
of

his

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
October 21, 2015.
21, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on November

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

2