Wesley Edward Smith, Iii v. South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2379
WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA; GOVERNOR HENRY MCMASTER; ATTORNEY
GENERAL ALAN WILSON; MAYOR JOSEPH P. RILEY, Retired; CHARLIE
CONDON, Solicitor of South Carolina, Retired; COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY; CAROLINA FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, INC. LLC; BURGER KING,
INC.; PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.; SUPERINTENDENT CCSD
CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOLS; CUMMINS ENGINE; JAMES E.
CLYBURN, Congressman, 14th District; WENDELL GILLYARD; MARVIN
PENDARVIS, South Carolina Legislator; BANK OF AMERICA; MILITARY
MAGNET ACADEMY; PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; DONALD TRUMP, Former
President; BARACK OBAMA, Former President; GEORGE W. BUSH, Former
President; WILLIAM CLINTON, Former President; SENATOR LINDSEY
GRAHAM; DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Chief Medical Physician; HILARY
CLINTON, Former Secretary of State; ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary of State
Office; SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL; NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the
House; KEVIN MCCARTHY, Speaker of the House; PIGGLY WIGGLY, INC.;
LOW COUNTRY GROCERY FINANCIERS; HONORABLE JOSEPH DAWSON,
III; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, Wage Division Department; DANIEL FRANK BLANCHARD,
District Attorney; REMAX PRO REALTY, d/b/a Centex Home and Loans,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-05320-BHH)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Edward Smith, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s postjudgment orders
denying his notice and motion to stay mandate, his motion for discovery, his motions for a
hearing, and his motion for injunctive relief. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice
of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 orders on December 5 and 10, 2024, and the appeal
periods expired on February 3 and 10, 2025, respectively. Smith filed the notice of appeal
on November 12, 2025. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Smith’s self-styled “notice and
motion for production per pretrial conformance” and 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

-- 3 of 3 --