Wesley Smith III v. South Carolina - Appeal Dismissed for Untimely Filing

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 2379 WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAR OLINA; GO VERNOR HENR Y MCMASTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON; MAY OR JOSEPH P. R ILEY, Reti red; CHARLIE CONDON, Solicitor of South Carolina, Retired; C OMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; CAR OLINA FRANCHISE HO LDINGS, INC. LL C; BURGER KING, INC.; PEPSI BO TTL ING GROUP, INC.; SUPERINTEN DENT CCSD CHARLESTON CO UNTY SCHOOLS; CUMMINS ENGINE; J AMES E. CLYBURN, Congressman, 14th District; WE NDELL GILLYARD; MARVIN PENDARVIS, South Carolina Legislator; BANK OF AMERICA; MILITARY MAGNET AC ADEMY; PR ESIDENT JO E BIDEN; D ONALD T RUMP, For mer President; BARACK OBAMA, Former Presid ent; GEORGE W. BUSH, Former President; WILLIAM CLINTON, Former Preside nt; SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM; DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Chief Medical Physician; HILARY CLINTON, Former Secretary of State; ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary of S tate Office; SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL; NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the House; KEVIN MCCARTHY, Speaker of the H ouse; PIGGLY WIGGLY, INC.; LOW COUNTR Y GROCERY F INANCIERS; HO NORABLE JOSE PH DAWSON, III; EQ UAL EMPLOYME NT OPPORTUNIT Y COMMISS ION; DEP ARTM ENT OF LABOR, Wage Divisio n Department; DANIEL FRANK BLANCHARD, District Attorney; REMAX PRO REALTY, d/b/a C entex Home and Loans, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Sou th Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hend ricks, District Judge. (2:23 - cv - 05320 - BHH)

2 Submitted: February 19, 202 6 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

3 PER CURIAM: Wesley Edward Smith, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s postjudgmen t orders denying his notice and motion to stay mandate, his motion for discovery, his motions for a hearing, and his motion for in junctive relief. We dismiss the appeal for lack o f 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 n o 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 th e district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4 (a)(5) or reopens the appeal period und er Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civ il case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court entered its o rders 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 o btain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Smith’s self - styled “notice and motion for production p er pretrial conform ance” and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED