UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2403

CORINTHIAN STACK; LYNN K. STACK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC; CHAD W. BURGESS, individual; GREGORY T.

WHITLEY, individual; LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC.; LPS DEFAULT SOLUTIONS; LPS DEFAULT SOLUTIONS NETWORK; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1, Asset Backed Certification, Series 2005-1; PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES; JOHN DO 1-10; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRAT SYSTEM, a/k/a MERS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-02854-CMC)

Submitted: February 28, 2022 Decided: March 17, 2022

Before KING, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corinthian Stack, Lynn K. Stack, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Corinthian Stack and Lynn K. Stack seek to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their civil complaint alleging mortgage fraud and other claims without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

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). “[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 entered its order dismissing the complaint on November 4, 2021.

The Stacks filed a notice of appeal from that order on December 16, 2021. Because the Stacks failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of the November 4, 2021, order.

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