Wesley Edward Smith, Iii v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Governor Henry McMaster; BERKELEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2377
WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Governor Henry McMaster; BERKELEY
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:25-cv-00697-DCN)
Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Edward Smith, III, has noted an appeal from the district court’s order and
judgment adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action and the court’s subsequent order denying his postjudgment
petition docketed as a motion to remand to state court. We treat Smith’s self-styled “notice
and motion for production per pretrial conformance informal opening brief” as a motion to
supplement his informal briefs, grant that motion, and dismiss in part and affirm in part.
We dismiss Smith’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal judgment 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 dismissal judgment on July 28,
2025, and the appeal period expired on August 27, 2025. Smith filed the notice of appeal
on November 13, 2025. Because Smith 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 order and
judgment dismissing the action.
Smith also appeals the district court’s order denying his postjudgment petition
docketed as a motion to remand to state court. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Smith v. South Carolina,
No. 2:25-cv-00697-DCN (D.S.C. Oct. 30, 2025).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --