Andy L. Ralston v. KYLE SMITH, M.D. Provider, Augusta Correctional Center

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6719
ANDY L. RALSTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KYLE SMITH, M.D. Provider, Augusta Correctional Center; DORINDA LOKEY,
formerly Dameron, RN, Augusta Health Service Administrator; LORETTA
GRAHAM, ADA Coordinator, Augusta Correctional Center; VIOLA RIGGIN,
CEO, VitalCore Health Strategies; ASSISTANT WARDEN NEWCOMER,
Augusta Correctional Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00348-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andy Lewis Ralston, Appellant Pro Se. Grace Morse-McNelis, Glen Allen, Virginia,
Austin Logan Obenshain, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andy Lewis Ralston seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants
Graham and Newcomer’s motion to dismiss and granting Defendants Smith, Riggin, and
Lokey’s motion for summary judgment in Ralston’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 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 1, 2025, and the appeal period expired on
July 31, 2025. Ralston filed the notice of appeal on August 20, 2025.* Because Ralston
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal. 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
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the
envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Ralston would 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 2 --