Darlene J. Davis v. CARL M. BATES, Trustee -

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1557
DARLENE J. DAVIS,
Debtor - Appellant,
v.
CARL M. BATES,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00388-MHL)
Submitted: September 23, 2022 Decided: October 7, 2022
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darlene J. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Darlene J. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing her appeal of
the bankruptcy court’s orders and denying her motion for reconsideration. In civil cases,
parties have 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). See
Fed. R. App. P. 6(b)(1). “[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 3, 2020.1 The notice
of appeal was filed on May 11, 2020.2 Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,3 we dismiss the appeal.
Because we lack jurisdiction, we also deny Davis’ motion to reverse decision on appeal or
stay pending appeal and her motion to set aside a foreclosure sale. We dispense with oral
1 In our August 31, 2021 Order remanding this case, we concluded that Davis’
postjudgment motion was properly construed as a motion for rehearing pursuant to Rule
8022 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. As that motion served to toll the
appeal period from the underlying dismissal order, we also concluded that the order
disposing of Davis’s postjudgment motion commenced the appeal period relevant to both
orders.
2 In our August 31, 2021 Order, we concluded that, insofar as Davis’ February 12,
2020 “Objection” purported to act as a conditional notice of appeal, her Objection did not
manifest an intent to appeal sufficient to warrant its characterization as a notice of appeal.
3 On January 20, 2022, the district court denied Davis’ request for an extension of
the appeal period.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --