USCA4 Appeal: 24-6333 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6333

NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. YES CARE CORP.; SARAH JOHNSON, RN; DR. CLEM, M.D.; DR. METERA, M.D.; DR. RAAB, M.D.; STEPHANIE CYRAN, RN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00166-LKG)

Submitted: May 30, 2025 Decided: July 1, 2025

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6333 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 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 February 13, 2024, and the appeal period expired on March 14, 2024. Williams filed a notice of appeal on April 6, 2024. * We remanded for the limited purpose of determining whether Williams filed a timely notice of appeal or whether reopening or extending the appeal period was warranted.

Williams v. Yes Care Corp., No. 24-6333, 2024 WL 4003084 (4th Cir. Aug. 30, 2024). On remand, the district court found that Williams did not file a timely notice of appeal; the court construed the notice of appeal as a motion to reopen or extend the appeal period, but declined to extend or reopen the appeal period. Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the dismissal order and the district court did not extend or reopen the

* For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Williams 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).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6333 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/01/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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