Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06012/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06012-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chase Carmen Hunter
Appellant
Midland Mortgage
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MIDLAND MORTGAGE, a division of 

Midfirst Bank, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-6012

(D.C. No. 5:15-CV-01266-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, HOLMES, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on Appellant’s “Verified Motion for Relief from 

Order Dated February 8, 2016,” construed as a motion to reinstate. See 10th Cir. R. 42.2. 

So construed, the motion is granted, and the matter is reinstated. 

We now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal is 

untimely. 

In a civil case in which the United States is not a party, a notice of appeal must be 

filed within 30 days of entry of the order being appealed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) 

(providing that a notice of appeal in a civil matter must be filed within 30 days of entry of 

judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (same). 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 1, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-6012 Document: 01019579265 Date Filed: 03/01/2016 Page: 1 
2

This court does not have the discretion to allow an untimely notice of appeal; a 

timely notice of appeal in a civil case is both mandatory and jurisdictional. See Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court dismissed the underlying complaint 

on December 7, 2015 and separate judgment was also entered that day. Appellant’s 

response to the court’s show cause order discusses the dates she mailed her notice of 

appeal and post-judgment motions and asserts that the post-judgment motions tolled the 

effectiveness of her notice of appeal. The dates Appellant mailed her notice of appeal and 

post-judgment motions are irrelevant because she is not incarcerated. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(c). Appellant’s January 11, 2016 notice of appeal is beyond Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure’s 4(a)(1)(A)’s 30-day period. The court notes that although Appellant’s motion 

discusses three post-judgment motions that she states were sent to the district court on the 

same day, the district court docket reflects just one. That post-judgment motion is also 

untimely and thus did not toll the effectiveness of her notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(4)(A) (providing that the effectiveness of a notice of appeal is tolled “[i]f a party 

timely files” certain motions). 

Appellate Case: 16-6012 Document: 01019579265 Date Filed: 03/01/2016 Page: 2 
3

Because the notice of appeal is untimely, the court lacks jurisdiction over this 

appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-6012 Document: 01019579265 Date Filed: 03/01/2016 Page: 3