Court Opinion

ID: 9831336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:46.629283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.807180
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1578      Doc: 15         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1578

        NELSON L. BRUCE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a/k/a Bank of America,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:19-cv-03456-BHH)

        Submitted: May 5, 2023                                            Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nelson L. Bruce, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1578      Doc: 15         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nelson L. Bruce appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ.

        P. 59(d), (e) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

        appeal was not timely filed.

               To appeal an order disposing of a Rule 59 motion, a party must file a notice of appeal

        within the time prescribed by Fed. R. App. P. 4—here, 30 days. Fed. R. App.. P.

        4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(B)(ii). “[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 entered its order on April 20, 2022, and Bruce filed his notice of

        appeal 34 days later, on May 24, 2022. Because Bruce failed to file a timely notice of

        appeal, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

                                                     2