Wesley Smith, III v. South Carolina

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2379 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2379

WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA; GOVERNOR HENRY MCMASTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON; MAYOR JOSEPH P. RILEY, Retired; CHARLIE CONDON, Solicitor of South Carolina, Retired; COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; CAROLINA FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, INC. LLC; BURGER KING, INC.; PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.; SUPERINTENDENT CCSD CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOLS; CUMMINS ENGINE; JAMES E.

CLYBURN, Congressman, 14th District; WENDELL GILLYARD; MARVIN PENDARVIS, South Carolina Legislator; BANK OF AMERICA; MILITARY MAGNET ACADEMY; PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; DONALD TRUMP, Former President; BARACK OBAMA, Former President; GEORGE W. BUSH, Former President; WILLIAM CLINTON, Former President; SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM; DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Chief Medical Physician; HILARY CLINTON, Former Secretary of State; ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary of State Office; SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL; NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the House; KEVIN MCCARTHY, Speaker of the House; PIGGLY WIGGLY, INC.; LOW COUNTRY GROCERY FINANCIERS; HONORABLE JOSEPH DAWSON, III; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Wage Division Department; DANIEL FRANK BLANCHARD, District Attorney; REMAX PRO REALTY, d/b/a Centex Home and Loans, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-05320-BHH) USCA4 Appeal: 25-2379 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2379 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Wesley Edward Smith, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s postjudgment orders denying his notice and motion to stay mandate, his motion for discovery, his motions for a hearing, and his motion for injunctive relief. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 orders on December 5 and 10, 2024, and the appeal periods expired on February 3 and 10, 2025, respectively. Smith filed the notice of appeal on November 12, 2025. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Smith’s self-styled “notice and motion for production per pretrial conformance” and 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