Kippie Walker v. K. BOWLES, Warden - Sussex I Prison; THOMAS MEYER, Western Regional Admin.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-7061
KIPPIE WALKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
K. BOWLES, Warden – Sussex I Prison; THOMAS MEYER, Western Regional
Admin.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:25-cv-00610-MHL-MRC)
Submitted: March 26, 2026 Decided: March 31, 2026
Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kippie Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kippie Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order directing
him to pay the initial partial filing fee or attest that he could not pay such a fee.1 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 October 27, 2025, so the appeal period expired
on November 26, 2025. Walker filed his notice of appeal on December 2, 2025.2 Because
Walker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
1 The order is final and appealable because the district court did not grant Walker
leave to amend his complaint. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en
banc) (order).
2 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the envelope
containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Walker 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 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

-- 3 of 3 --