Court Opinion

ID: 9905153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:01:34.875971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:07.863183
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1625      Doc: 32         Filed: 11/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1625

        MOHAMMAD ASLAM MIAN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        LOANCARE SERVICING COMPANY; NEWREZ LOAN CARE; FANNIE MAE,
        Loan Guarantor,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:21-cv-02419-DKC)

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                Decided: November 27, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mohammad Aslam Mian, Appellant Pro Se. Jason E. Manning, TROUTMAN PEPPER
        HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1625      Doc: 32         Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Mohammad Aslam Mian seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting

        Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying Mian’s several

        postjudgment motions. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

               In civil cases, parties have 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). While the filing

        of certain motions may toll the running of the appeal period, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(4)(A),

        “[s]uccessive post-judgment motions do not allow an effective extension of time to appeal

        from the denial of the initial [postjudgment] motion, let alone the original judgment,”

        Armstrong v. Louden, 834 F.3d 767, 769 (7th Cir. 2016); see EEOC v. Central Motor Lines,

        Inc., 537 F.2d 1162, 1165 (4th Cir. 1976).

               Mian’s notice of appeal, filed on May 30, 2023, is timely only as to the district

        court’s May 25, 2023, order denying his motion for a more definite statement and for a

        final order. Regarding that order, we have reviewed the record and found no reversible

        error. As for the other orders Mian seeks to appeal, each order was entered more than 30

        days prior to Mian’s May 30, 2023, notice of appeal, and Mian did not obtain an extension

        or reopening of any appeal period. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review any other orders.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s May 25, 2023, order, and we dismiss the

        balance of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Mian’s motion to seal and dispense

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1625      Doc: 32        Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        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.

                                                                             AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                             DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    3