Castle Credit Co. Holding, LLC v. Roy Riley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:17-cv-02591-DCC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000313656].. [18-1209]

Appeal: 18-1209

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/18/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1209

CASTLE CREDIT CO. HOLDING, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROY RILEY; RAMONA RILEY,
Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-02591-DCC)

Submitted: June 14, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Riley, Ramona Riley, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: June 18, 2018

Appeal: 18-1209

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/18/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Roy Riley and Ramona Riley seek to appeal from the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding the debt
collection case filed against the Rileys back to state court. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty 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 January 2, 2018. The
notice of appeal was filed on February 23, 2018. Because the Rileys 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