Court Opinion

ID: 9368362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:01:03.495545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.408312
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2132      Doc: 25         Filed: 02/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2132

        RAVENGRACE MORI EL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HSBC BANK,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00716-LCB-LPA)

        Submitted: January 25, 2023                                       Decided: February 2, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        RavenGrace Mori El, Appellant Pro Se. Hilton Terry Hutchens, Jr., HUTCHENS LAW
        FIRM, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2132       Doc: 25         Filed: 02/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                RavenGrace Mori El appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation and dismissing El’s complaint as barred by res judicata and the

        court’s order denying El’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We affirm in part and dismiss in

        part.

                We “have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction,

        even in the absence of a jurisdictional challenge from one of the parties.” Williamson v.

        Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district

        court entered judgment dismissing El’s complaint on September 29, 2022, and denied El’s

        Rule 59(e) motion on October 28, 2022. Because El’s Rule 59(e) motion was still pending

        when she filed her notice of appeal, El’s notice of appeal of the underlying judgment

        became effective when the court denied that motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv),

        (B)(i). El, however, did not file a new or amended notice of appeal after the court’s denial

        of her Rule 59(e) motion, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). Although El listed

        the Rule 59(e) order in her informal brief, and an informal brief may serve as a notice of

        appeal if it otherwise complies with the rules governing proper timing and substance, see

        Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992), El filed her informal brief on December 1,

        2022—three days after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period applicable to the order

        denying her motion for reconsideration. *         Because El did not seek an extension or

                Because the thirtieth day, November 27, 2022, was a Sunday, El had until Monday,
                *

        November 28, 2022, to file a timely notice of appeal from the denial of the Rule 59(e)
        motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2132         Doc: 25       Filed: 02/02/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        reopening of the appeal period, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), her appeal is untimely as

        to the court’s denial of her Rule 59(e) motion. We therefore dismiss this portion of the

        appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

               Turning to El’s timely appeal of the district court’s judgment dismissing her

        complaint based on res judicata, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.

        El v. HSBC Bank, No. 1:22-cv-00716-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2022). We grant

        El’s motion to file a supplemental brief and deny her motion for injunctive relief pending

        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.

                                                                                AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                                DISMISSED IN PART

                                                      3