Fenyang Stewart v. Gina M. Raimondo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1239
FENYANG STEWART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GINA M. RAIMONDO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of Commerce; ROBERT FENNEMA, in his individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01525-LMB-IDD)
Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fenyang Ajamu Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr. Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Fenyang Stewart, a pro se civil litigant who is not incarcerated, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing Stewart’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
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 order on January 12, 2024, and the appeal period
expired on March 12, 2024. Stewart filed the notice of appeal on March 15, 2024—the
date it was received in the district court*—three days after the appeal-period expired.
Because Stewart failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
* Because Stewart was not incarcerated when he filed the notice of appeal, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(c), the so-called “prison mailbox rule,” is not applicable in this case.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --