Calvin Latimer v. City of Charlotte

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00442-RJC-DSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999785747]. Mailed to: Latimers. [15-2425]

Appeal: 15-2425

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2425

CALVIN LATIMER; SANDRA LATIMER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00442-RJC-DSC)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Calvin G. Latimer, Sandra Latimer, Appellants Pro Se.
Daniel
Edward Peterson, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2425

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Calvin and Sandra Latimer seek to appeal from the district
court’s April 2013 order setting aside a default in their favor
and dismissing their civil lawsuit and also from the October 2015
order denying their motions in which they sought to revisit the
default or file a belated appeal.

We dismiss in part and affirm

in part.
To the extent that the Latimers seek to appeal the district
court’s April 2013 order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
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 April
29, 2013.

The notice of appeal was filed on October 20, 2015.

Because the Latimers failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal from the April 2013 order.
The Latimers also noted an appeal from the district court’s
order denying their motions to revisit the default or for leave to
2

Appeal: 15-2425

file

Doc: 11

an

appeal

Filed: 03/31/2016

out

of

Pg: 3 of 3

time,

for

entry

reconsideration, and for summary judgment.
record and find no reversible error.

of

default,

for

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Latimer v. Charlotte,

No 3:12-cv-00442-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2015).

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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3