Wellesley Clayton v. Linda Simpson, No. 16-1693 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1693 In re: WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON, Appellant, -------------------------------WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON, Debtor – Appellant, v. LINDA W. SIMPSON, U. S. Bankruptcy Administrator, Trustee – Appellee, and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Party-in-Interest – Appellee, and M&T BANK, Creditor – Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00347-RJC) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wellesley K. Clayton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Cox, Jr. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Lacey Meredith Moore, HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Charlotte, North Carolina; Linda Wright Simpson, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Wellesley K. Clayton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order converting his case from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 proceeding. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 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). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 23, 2015. 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on June 15, Because Clayton failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave appeal. legal before to proceed in forma pauperis and we dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
