Emmanuel Uzoma v. Barclays Bank, PLC, No. 14-1630 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1630 EMMANUEL UZOMA; EMELIA UZOMA, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. BARCLAYS, PLC; EQUIFIRST CORPORATION; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST; COMPANY; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., other JP Morgan Chase, NA; HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION, d/b/a Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., d/b/a Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, other Homeq Corporation; STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL REAL ESTATE, INC.; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-00977-RWT) Submitted: August 20, 2014 Decided: August 28, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Uzoma, Emelia Uzoma, Appellants Pro Se. David Block Bergman, ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Chad King, John Sears Simcox, SIMCOX & BARCLAY, Annapolis, Maryland; Christopher Michele Corchiarino, GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH & DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Joshua Tropper, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Emmanuel and Emelia Uzoma seek to appeal the district court s order granting the Defendants motions to dismiss their civil action. Defendants have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty 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 March 27, 2014. 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on June 24, Because Appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.