Case Name: Phillip WARD; Deirdre Ward, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST; The Fisher Law Group, PLLC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-27
Citations: 678 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 16-2147
Parties: Phillip WARD; Deirdre Ward, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST; The Fisher Law Group, PLLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 117–117

Head Matter:
Phillip WARD; Deirdre Ward, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST; The Fisher Law Group, PLLC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-2147
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 23, 2017
Decided: February 27, 2017
Phillip Ward, Deirdre Ward, Appellants Pro Se.
Brian L. Moffet, Zachary Saul Schultz, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, Martin Stuart Goldberg, BP FISHER LAW GROUP, LLP, Oxon Hill, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Ward and Deirdre Ward seek to appeal the district court's order denying relief on their civil complaint. Appellee Branch Banking and Trust ("BB&T") moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and the Wards have replied to the motion. We grant BB&T's motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
"[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). Generally, a party has 30 days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to notice an appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The notice period may be extended or reopened by the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6). The district court entered final judgment on May 18, 2016. Because the Wards filed their notice of appeal of this order on July 18,2016, their notice of appeal was untimely. Additionally, the district court denied their motion to extend the appeal period, finding that the Wards did not demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for an extension.
Because the Wards 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