Calvin Latimer; Sandra Latimer v. City of Charlotte

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2425
CALVIN LATIMER; SANDRA LATIMER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00442-RJC-DSC)
Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Calvin G. Latimer, Sandra Latimer, Appellants Pro Se. Daniel
Edward Peterson, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Calvin and Sandra Latimer seek to appeal from the district
court’s April 2013 order setting aside a default in their favor
and dismissing their civil lawsuit and also from the October 2015
order denying their motions in which they sought to revisit the
default or file a belated appeal. We dismiss in part and affirm
in part.
To the extent that the Latimers seek to appeal the district
court’s April 2013 order, 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 April
29, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on October 20, 2015.
Because the Latimers failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal from the April 2013 order.
The Latimers also noted an appeal from the district court’s
order denying their motions to revisit the default or for leave to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
file an appeal out of time, for entry of default, for
reconsideration, and for summary judgment. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Latimer v. Charlotte,
No 3:12-cv-00442-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2015). 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --