Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02289/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02289-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thornell Johnson
Appellant
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2289

THORNELL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. 

(8:14-cv-02536-GJH)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dmitry Balannik, TOUCHSTONE LAW FIRM, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, 

for Appellant. Craig R. Haughton, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2289 Doc: 45 Filed: 10/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Thornell Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

granting defendant’s motion to dismiss and, dismissing his 

complaint. 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 

October 21, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on November 

21, 2015. Because Johnson 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: 14-2289 Doc: 45 Filed: 10/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 2