USCA4 Appeal: 24-1085 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1085

STANLEY JONES; DEBRA JONES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Defendant - Appellee, and CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:23-cv-01316-DLB)

Submitted: June 13, 2024 Decided: June 18, 2024

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Jones and Debra Jones, Appellants Pro Se. Melissa O. Martinez, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1085 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Stanley and Debra Jones seek to appeal the district court’s orders granting Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s, motion to dismiss their civil action and denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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 denying reconsideration on December 19, 2023, and the appeal period expired on January 18, 2024. The Joneses filed the notice of appeal on January 23, 2024. Because the Joneses failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

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