Roy Sylvester Hunt, Jr. v. P. MCCABE, Registered Nurse

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6826
ROY SYLVESTER HUNT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
P. MCCABE, Registered Nurse,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ARMOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER; LIEUTENANT CUNDIFF; UNIT
MANAGER GILBERTSON; J. GILLUS, Food Service Assistant Director; R.
HALOM, Medical Secretary; ASSISTANT WARDEN JERRY; PROCICE,
Registered Nurse; SERGEANT SUMMERVILLE; LIEUTENANT WHITEHEAD,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:21-cv-00539-MHL-MRC)
Submitted: June 23, 2026 Decided: July 14, 2026
Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Roy Sylvester Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Juliane C. Miller, HARMAN CLAYTOR
CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Roy Sylvester Hunt, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
second particularized 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 July 3, 2024, so the appeal period expired on
August 2, 2024. Because Hunt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.* We deny as moot
Hunt’s motion for assignment of counsel and Defendant’s motion to strike Hunt’s second
informal brief.
* Hunt dated his notice of appeal July 29, 2024, but the envelope containing the
notice of appeal was postmarked on August 15, 2024. Because the record did not reveal
when Hunt delivered his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing, we remanded this
case to the district court the limited purpose of obtaining this information from the parities
and determining whether the filing was timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing prison mailbox rule). After an evidentiary
hearing, the magistrate judge found that Hunt delivered the notice of appeal to prison
officials for mailing sometime after the expiration of the appeal period. Hunt did not object
to this finding, so the district court adopted it. Hunt has not identified—nor can we
discern—any plain error in the district court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s finding.
To the contrary, the magistrate judge carefully considered the exhibits and testimony
presented by both parties and simply found Hunt’s account not credible.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --