Linda Carr v. Hutchens, Senter, Kellam

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999795152-2], [999815005-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999832296-2]. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00532-RJC-DSC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999895632]. Mailed to: Linda N. Carr, Alexander Carter Covington. [16-1414]

Appeal: 16-1414

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1414

LINDA N. CARR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HUTCHENS, SENTER, KELLAM, & PETTIT, P.A.; BANK OF AMERICA,
d/b/a BANA; W. R. STARKEY; COUNTRYWIDE; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC; W. R. STARKEY MORTGAGE, LLP,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cv-00532-RJC-DSC)

Submitted:

July 21, 2016

Decided:

July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda N. Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Lacey Meredith Moore, HUTCHENS
LAW FIRM, Charlotte, North Carolina; Alexander Carter Covington,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1414

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Linda N. Carr seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
dismissing
motion

Carr’s

for

civil

relief.

action
We

and

dismiss

denying
the

her

appeal

postjudgment
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 dismissal order was entered on the
docket on May 19, 2015, and its order denying Carr’s motion for
postjudgment relief was entered on October 19, 2015.
of appeal was filed on April 12, 2016.

The notice

Because Carr failed to

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
In this appeal, Carr has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus,

seeking

district

court

drastic

remedy

circumstances.

to

an

order

vacate

and

its

should

from

this

prior
only

court

rulings.

be

used

directing
Mandamus

in

the
is

a

extraordinary

United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17

(4th Cir. 2003).

Moreover, mandamus relief is available only
2

Appeal: 16-1414

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, In
re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re
Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The

relief Carr seeks is not available by way of mandamus.
For

these

reasons,

we

deny

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and deny
the pending petition for a writ of mandamus.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3