USCA4 Appeal: 25-1403 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1403

KEITH EDWARD KASYJANSKI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DAVID SAWERINGENR; BRYANT GOODWIN; KAREN CASTLES; HODGE CLAUDE CC HODGE; CHRIS DAWNER; ERIC WHITE; EVERETT EVREST; WILL MONTGOMERY; ALLEN MCCOY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:24-cv-02278-JFA)

Submitted: October 6, 2025 Decided: October 21, 2025

Before AGEE, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Edward Kasyjanski, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1403 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Keith Edward Kasyjanski seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his

complaint for

failure to state a claim.

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell,

(2007). 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). A district court may

reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6) if: (1) the party moving for reopening did not

receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order sought to be appealed within 21 days

after entry; (2) the motion to reopen is filed within 180 days after the entry of the judgment

or order, or within 14 days after receiving notice of such entry, whichever is earlier; and

(3) a reopening would not prejudice any party.

The district court entered its order on October 23, 2024, and the appeal period

expired on November 22, 2024. Kasyjanski filed his notice of appeal on April 10, 2025.

Thus, Kasyjanski filed his appeal after the appeal period expired. However, the record

suggests that Kasyjanski did not receive notice of the order through a method of service

specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), as the district court’s mailing was returned as

undeliverable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(1); Shuler v. Orangeburg Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,

(4th Cir. 2023).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1403 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Because Kasyjanski did not receive actual notice of the district court’s order

dismissing his complaint, we remand for the limited purpose of allowing the district court

to determine whether the appeal period should be reopened pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6). The

record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED

3