Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr. v. State of South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6721
WELDON EUGENE HOLTZCLAW, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:25-cv-01371-DCC)
Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Weldon Eugene Hotzclaw, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissing Holtzclaw’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint, and imposing prefiling restrictions in light of Holtzclaw’s vexatious litigation
conduct. 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 on June 18, 2025, and the appeal period expired
on July 18, 2025. Holtzclaw filed the notice of appeal on August 19, 2025.* Because
Holtzclaw failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of
the appeal period, we deny Holtzclaw’s pending appellate “motion to appeal,” and 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
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Holtzclaw could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

-- 2 of 2 --