Full text
Mohammad Mian v. LoanCare Servicing Company
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1625 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1625
MOHAMMAD ASLAM MIAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOANCARE SERVICING COMPANY; NEWREZ LOAN CARE; FANNIE MAE, Loan Guarantor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:21-cv-02419-DKC)
Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 27, 2023
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mohammad Aslam Mian, Appellant Pro Se. Jason E. Manning, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1625 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Mohammad Aslam Mian seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying Mian’s several
postjudgment motions. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
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). While the filing
of certain motions may toll the running of the appeal period, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(4)(A),
“[s]uccessive post-judgment motions do not allow an effective extension of time to appeal
from the denial of the initial [postjudgment] motion, let alone the original judgment,”
Armstrong v. Louden, 834 F.3d 767, 769 (7th Cir. 2016); see EEOC v. Central Motor Lines,
Inc., 537 F.2d 1162, 1165 (4th Cir. 1976).
Mian’s notice of appeal, filed on May 30, 2023, is timely only as to the district
court’s May 25, 2023, order denying his motion for a more definite statement and for a
final order. Regarding that order, we have reviewed the record and found no reversible
error. As for the other orders Mian seeks to appeal, each order was entered more than 30
days prior to Mian’s May 30, 2023, notice of appeal, and Mian did not obtain an extension
or reopening of any appeal period. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review any other orders.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s May 25, 2023, order, and we dismiss the
balance of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Mian’s motion to seal and dispense *3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1625 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
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.