Michael Scott v. Samuel White, P.C., No. 13-2454 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2454 MICHAEL SCOTT; TERRY A. SCOTT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C.; WELLS FARGO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, INC., 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: March 6, 2014 Decided: March 13, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Scott and Terry A. Scott, Appellants Pro Se. Stanley Graves Barr, Jr., Richard Johan Conrad, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Scott and Terry A. Scott seek to appeal the district court s orders dismissing their complaint and denying their motion for relief from judgment. We 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). If a party timely files a motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), the time for filing an appeal runs from the district court s disposition of that motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi). timely of filing a notice of jurisdictional requirement. appeal in a civil [T]he case is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order dismissing was entered on the docket on March 14, 2008. the The court denied the motion for relief from judgment on June 5, 2009. of appeal was filed on November 25, 2013. failed to extension appeal. file or a timely reopening of notice the of appeal appeal complaint The notice Because the Scotts or period, to we obtain dismiss an the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal before 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.