Clayton Vines v. Jason Miyares

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6185 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/01/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6185

CLAYTON VINES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JASON S. MIYARES, Attorney General; MEGAN L. O’BRIEN, Assistant Attorney General; SURBHI BANSAL, Medical Doctor, Ophthalmology Practice, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00252-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: May 1, 2026

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clayton Vines, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6185 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/01/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Clayton Vines seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his amended civil 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 December 11, 2025, and the appeal period expired on January 12, 2026. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Vines filed the notice of appeal, at the earliest, on January 20, 2026. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Because Vines 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