Santana Cline v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 18-1492 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1492 SANTANA CLINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A.; REISENFELD & ASSOCIATES; CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:17-cv-02975) Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 25, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Santana Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Michael Williamson, BLANK ROME LLP, Washington, D.C.; Gregory Alan Stout, REISENFELD & ASSOCIATES LPA LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Santana Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Cline’s civil action. 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). “[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 28, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed on May 1, 2018. Because Cline failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In light of this disposition, we deny as moot Appellees’ motions to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 31(c) and for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38. 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