Garcia v. Dove - Appeal Dismissed for Untimely Filing

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed April 7th, 2026

Detected April 8th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit dismissed Jerome Garcia's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was not timely filed. The district court had dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous on November 25, 2025, and Garcia did not file his notice of appeal until February 17, 2026—well past the 30-day deadline that expired on December 26, 2025.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit applied the jurisdictional rule that timely filing of a notice of appeal is a strict requirement in civil cases under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Garcia's appeal was approximately 53 days late, and he neither sought an extension nor demonstrated grounds for reopening the appeal period under the Federal Rules. The court cited Bowles v. Russell (2007) for the proposition that this deadline cannot be waived.\n\nThis dismissal terminates Garcia's ability to challenge the district court's frivolousness finding on appeal. For civil rights plaintiffs, pro se litigants, and legal professionals, this case reinforces that appellate deadlines are strictly jurisdictional and cannot be excused—even where the underlying claims raise constitutional issues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

What to do next

Monitor for updates

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1206

JEROME GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant,

KENDRA L. DOVE; JOHN HOPKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:25-cv-06624-MGL) Submitted: March 30, 2026 Decided: April 7, 2026 Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Jerome Garcia seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 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 November 25, 2025, so the appeal period expired on December 26, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (excluding legal holidays). Garcia filed his notice of appeal on February 17, 2026. Because Garcia 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