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

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999555356-2] Originating case number: 2:08-cv-00097-RAJ-JEB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999639891]. Mailed to: Michael Scott and Terry Scott. [15-1192]

Appeal: 15-1192

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1192

MICHAEL A. SCOTT; TERRY 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, INCORPORATED, 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:

July 30, 2015

Decided:

August 13, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Michael A. Scott and Terry Scott, Appellants Pro Se.
Stanley
Graves Barr, Jr., Christy Lee Murphy, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC,
Norfolk, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1192

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael

A.

court orders.
14,

2008,

Scott

and

Terry

Scott

appeal

three

district

Insofar as the Scotts appeal the court’s March

order

and

judgment

dismissing

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

their

complaint,

we

Pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), a party in a civil action has 30
days to file a notice of appeal after entry of judgment.
timely

filing

of

a

notice

jurisdictional requirement.”
214 (2007).
18, 2015.

of

appeal

in

a

civil

“[T]he

case

is

a

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

The Scotts did not file their appeal until February
Because their appeal from the March 14, 2008, order

and judgment is untimely, we are without jurisdiction and must
dismiss in part this appeal.

We reject the Scotts’ claim that

the court’s December 23, 2014, order reopened the appeal period.
Insofar

as

the

Scotts

challenge

the

district

court’s

December 23, 2014, and February 4, 2015, orders, we affirm.

We

conclude that the Scotts’ arguments regarding the removal of
their civil action are without merit.

We also conclude that the

June 5, 2009, order was not void under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(4).

Also, we deny the Scotts’ petition for a

writ of mandamus.
Accordingly,

we

grant

the

Scotts’

motion

for

leave

to

proceed in forma pauperis, deny their petition for a writ of
mandamus, and dismiss in part and affirm in part.
2

We dispense

Appeal: 15-1192

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3