RavenGrace El v. HSBC Bank

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 2, 2023
• Docket: 22-2132
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2132 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2132

RAVENGRACE MORI EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HSBC BANK,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00716-LCB-LPA)

Submitted: January 25, 2023 Decided: February 2, 2023

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

RavenGrace Mori El, Appellant Pro Se. Hilton Terry Hutchens, Jr., HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2132 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

RavenGrace Mori El appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation and dismissing El’s complaint as barred by res judicata and the

court’s order denying El’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We affirm in part and dismiss in

part.

We “have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction,

even in the absence of a jurisdictional challenge from one of the parties.” Williamson v.

Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district

court entered judgment dismissing El’s complaint on September 29, 2022, and denied El’s

Rule 59(e) motion on October 28, 2022. Because El’s Rule 59(e) motion was still pending

when she filed her notice of appeal, El’s notice of appeal of the underlying judgment

became effective when the court denied that motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv),

(B)(i). El, however, did not file a new or amended notice of appeal after the court’s denial

of her Rule 59(e) motion, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). Although El listed

the Rule 59(e) order in her informal brief, and an informal brief may serve as a notice of

appeal if it otherwise complies with the rules governing proper timing and substance, see

Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992), El filed her informal brief on December 1,

2022—three days after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period applicable to the order

denying her motion for reconsideration. * Because El did not seek an extension or

Because the thirtieth day, November 27, 2022, was a Sunday, El had until Monday, *

November 28, 2022, to file a timely notice of appeal from the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2132 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

reopening of the appeal period, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), her appeal is untimely as

to the court’s denial of her Rule 59(e) motion. We therefore dismiss this portion of the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Turning to El’s timely appeal of the district court’s judgment dismissing her

complaint based on res judicata, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.

El v. HSBC Bank, No. 1:22-cv-00716-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2022). We grant

El’s motion to file a supplemental brief and deny her motion for injunctive relief pending

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART