Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01218/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01218-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1218

MARIANO H. OSPINA,

Debtor - Appellant,

v.

INDYMAC BANK,

Creditor - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:06-cv-00473-GCM)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 4, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mariano H. Ospina, Appellant Pro Se. Kristin Pickett Herber, John

Bucher Isbister, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Baltimore, Maryland; Kimberly

Ann Sheek, SHAPIRO & INGLE, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1218 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/04/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mariano H. Ospina seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s

order granting IndyMac Bank’s motion for relief from the automatic

stay and denying reconsideration. IndyMac has moved to dismiss the

appeal. Upon review of the record, we grant the motion and 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). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The district court’s final order was entered on the

docket on October 26, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on

January 29, 2008. Because Ospina failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we grant IndyMac’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

Appeal: 08-1218 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/04/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-1218 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/04/2008 Pg: 3 of 3