Herbert William Jones, Jr. v. Ronald Hite, a/k/a Ronnie, Sergeant; Police Officer; JIMMY L. PRIDE, JR.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7072
HERBERT WILLIAM JONES, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RONALD HITE, a/k/a Ronnie, Sergeant; Police Officer; JIMMY L. PRIDE, JR.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01284-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 14, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Herbert William Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Douglas Mullen, HARMAN
CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Herbert William Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denying his postjudgment motions to supplement his
claims. 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 Jones’s complaint on March 27, 2024,
and the appeal period expired on April 26, 2024. Jones filed the notice of appeal on
October 31, 2024.∗ Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of the district court’s
dismissal order.
With respect to the district court’s order denying Jones’s postjudgment motions to
supplement his claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Jones’s motions to supplement
his claims. Jones v. Hite, No. 1:22-cv-01284-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va., October 24, 2024).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
∗ For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Jones 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
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --