Phillip Ward v. Branch Banking and Trust

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999963040-2] Originating case number: 8:13-cv-01968-ELH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031022]. Mailed to: Deirdre Ward; Phillip Ward. [16-2147]

Appeal: 16-2147

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2147

PHILLIP WARD; DEIRDRE WARD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST; THE FISHER LAW GROUP, PLLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(8:13-cv-01968-ELH)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Ward, Deirdre Ward, Appellants Pro Se. Brian L. Moffet,
Zachary Saul Schultz, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore,
Maryland, Martin Stuart Goldberg, BP FISHER LAW GROUP, LLP, Oxon
Hill, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2147

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Phillip Ward and Deirdre Ward seek to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on their civil complaint.

Appellee

Branch Banking and Trust (“BB&T”) moves to dismiss the appeal as
untimely, and the Wards have replied to the motion.

We grant

BB&T’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is
a jurisdictional requirement.”
214 (2007).

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

Generally, a party has 30 days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to notice an appeal.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

See

The notice period may be extended or

reopened by the district court.

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6).

The district court entered final judgment on May 18, 2016. Because
the Wards filed their notice of appeal of this order on July 18,
2016, their notice of appeal was untimely.

Additionally, the

district court denied their motion to extend the appeal period,
finding that the Wards did not demonstrate excusable neglect or
good cause for an extension.
Because the Wards failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 16-2147

Doc: 26

materials

before

Filed: 02/27/2017

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3