Zachary Knotts v. JOLYNN MARRA, West Virginia Inspector General’s Office

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1243
ZACHARY KNOTTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOLYNN MARRA, West Virginia Inspector General’s Office; BILL J. CROUCH,
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Director; JOHN LOPEZ,
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Director; CRAIG
BLAIR, West Virginia President of the Senate; EVAN JENKINS, West Virginia
Chief of Supreme Court; PATRICK RYAN, West Virginia CEO of Sharpe Hospital;
JOHN SNYDER, West Virginia State Forensic Coordinator at West Virginia Sharpe
Hospital; JOHN D. JUSTICE, M.D., West Virginia Statewide Forensic Medical
Director; ROGER GLEN HANSHAW, West Virginia Speaker of the House;
PATRICK MORRISEY, Attorney General of the State of West Virginia; LESLIE
THORNTON, West Virginia Medical Inspector; MARK SPANGLER, West
Virginia Medical Board Director; WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY MEDICINE
LITIGATING COUNCIL MEMBERS JANE AND JOHN DOE 1 TO 10; WEST
VIRGINIA FORENSIC MENTAL HYGIENE EXAMINERS JANE AND JOHN
DOE 1 TO 10; SHARPE HOSPITAL WORKERS JANE AND JOHN DOE 1 TO
10; JANE AND JOHN DOE 1 TO 10; ENTITIES ABC TO XYZ, (entities yet to be
named); DR. SUSAN CHOBY; CHRISTINA MULLINS, West Virginia
Commissioner, Bureau for Behavioral Health; FAIRMONT FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (2:21-cv-00176)
Submitted: September 14, 2023 Decided: September 18, 2023

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zachary Knotts, Appellant Pro Se. Geoffrey A. Cullop, Kelly Pawlowski, PULLIN,
FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia;
Christopher Starr Etheredge, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia;
Charles R. Bailey, Samuel Martin Bloom, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia; Chelsea Virginia Brown, BOWLES RICE, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia;
Melissa G. Foster Bird, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP,
Huntington, West Virginia; Trisha A. Gill, LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Zachary Knotts seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting in part and
rejecting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Knotts’ amended
complaint for failure to state a claim and the court’s subsequent order denying as moot his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Defendants Craig Blair and Roger Glen
Hanshaw have moved to dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion in part, dismiss the
appeal in part, and affirm in part.
To the extent Knotts seeks to appeal the dismissal of his amended complaint, we
lack jurisdiction over the appeal. 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 dismissing the amended complaint on February
18, 2022, and subsequently extended the appeal period until May 5, 2022. Knotts filed the
instant notice of appeal on March 6, 2023. Although Knotts previously noted a timely
appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint, that appeal was
dismissed for failure to prosecute, and Knotts has not established good cause for reinstating
that appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 45. We therefore grant the motion to dismiss as to this portion
of the appeal.
Knotts’ notice of appeal was timely filed as to the district court’s order denying as
moot Knotts’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, which “is an appealable

-- 3 of 4 --

4
order.” Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (per curiam). We discern no
reversible error in the district court’s denial of that motion, and we therefore affirm the
district court’s order. Knotts v. Marra, No. 2:21-cv-00176 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 6, 2023).
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

-- 4 of 4 --