Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Emmanuel UZOMA; Emelia Uzoma, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARCLAYS, PLC; Equifirst Corporation; The Bank of New York Mellon Trust; Company; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., other JP Morgan Chase, NA; Homeq Servicing Corporation, d/b/a Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., d/b/a Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, other Homeq Corporation; Statebridge Company, LLC; Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc.; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-1630.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 20, 2014.
    Decided: Aug. 28, 2014.
    Emmanuel Uzoma, Emelia Uzoma, Appellants pro se. David Block Bergman, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Chad King, John Sears Simcox, simcox & barclay, Annapolis, Maryland; Christopher Michele Corchiarino, Goodell Devries Leech & Dann, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Joshua Tropper, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel and Emelia .Uzoma seek to appeal the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss their civil action. Defendants have moved to 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, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 27, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on June 24, 2014. Because Appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.