Adrienne Smalls v. Tyrone Lawrence

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Adrienne Smalls v. Tyrone Lawrence

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1330 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1330

ADRIENNE SMALLS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TYRONE LAWRENCE; WESLEY MORGAN; STACIA TOWNSEND; CITY OF CHARLESTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:23-cv-03811-DCN)

Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 20, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrienne Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Bob Conley, CLAWSON & STAUBES, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1330 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Adrienne Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation to dismiss Smalls’ civil action for failure to prosecute. 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 final judgment on January 27, 2025, and the appeal

period expired on February 26, 2025. Smalls filed the notice of appeal on March 31, 2025.

Because Smalls 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished