Robert Michael Ardis v. Darlene Dickey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7107
ROBERT MICHAEL ARDIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DARLENE DICKEY; WILLIAM EDDINS; SARAH HARPER-CRUTCHFIELD;
GREGORY MARCILLE; TIMOTHY REGISTER; THOMAS WILLIAMS; JANE
DOES 1-10; JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (3:23-cv-01171-SAL)
Submitted: March 16, 2026 Decided: June 2, 2026
Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Michael Ardis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Michael Ardis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.1
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 October
24, 2023, and the appeal period expired on November 27, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(1)(C), (3). Ardis filed the notice of appeal on November 18, 2024.
Because Ardis did not file a timely notice of appeal or timely obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period as to the dismissal order, we dismiss the appeal.2
1 Ardis has moved for judicial notice and to expedite our decision. We deny the
motion for judicial notice and deny as moot the motion to expedite.
2 Ardis’s postjudgment motions to amend the complaint did not toll the appeal
period for the dismissal order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). And although the district
court granted Ardis’s motion to reopen the appeal period as to the denial of the motions to
amend, Ardis filed the motion to reopen after the time for him to move for an extension or
reopening of the appeal period for the dismissal order had expired. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(5)(A)(i), (6)(B). Accordingly, the district court could not at that time extend or reopen
the appeal period for the dismissal order. Finally, because Ardis does not challenge in his
informal brief the denial of his motions to amend or his subsequent motion to reconsider,
we do not consider whether this appeal would be timely as to the orders denying those
motions. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

-- 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 --