Michael Scott v. Samuel I. White, P.C., No. 15-1192 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1192 MICHAEL A. SCOTT; TERRY SCOTT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.; GE MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC; WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INCORPORATED, d/b/a America’s Servicing Company; USA BANK, NA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00097-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: July 30, 2015 Decided: August 13, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Scott and Terry Scott, Appellants Pro Se. Stanley Graves Barr, Jr., Christy Lee Murphy, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael A. court orders. 14, 2008, Scott and Terry Scott appeal three district Insofar as the Scotts appeal the court’s March order and judgment dismissing dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. their complaint, we Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), a party in a civil action has 30 days to file a notice of appeal after entry of judgment. timely filing of a notice jurisdictional requirement.” 214 (2007). 18, 2015. of appeal in a civil “[T]he case is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, The Scotts did not file their appeal until February Because their appeal from the March 14, 2008, order and judgment is untimely, we are without jurisdiction and must dismiss in part this appeal. We reject the Scotts’ claim that the court’s December 23, 2014, order reopened the appeal period. Insofar as the Scotts challenge the district court’s December 23, 2014, and February 4, 2015, orders, we affirm. We conclude that the Scotts’ arguments regarding the removal of their civil action are without merit. We also conclude that the June 5, 2009, order was not void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). Also, we deny the Scotts’ petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we grant the Scotts’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny their petition for a writ of mandamus, and dismiss in part and affirm in part. 2 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
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.
