Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01762/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01762-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Edwards
Appellee
Luthi
Appellee
Curtis Glenn Moorer
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1762

CURTIS GLENN MOORER, a/k/a Curtis G. Moorer,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MR. LUTHI, New Carolina Mortgage; CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(6:15-cv-01921-RBH)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Glenn Moorer, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1762 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Glenn Moorer seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing Moorer’s complaint for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 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 May 

29, 2015. Moorer filed the notice of appeal on July 7, 2015. 

Because Moorer 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

Appeal: 15-1762 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2