McKeever v. State of North Carolina - Appeal Dismissed

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal filed by William N. McKeever, a North Carolina inmate, due to a late filing of the notice of appeal. The court found that the appeal period expired before McKeever filed his notice, thus lacking jurisdiction.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal of William N. McKeever in the case of McKeever v. State of North Carolina. The dismissal is based on the appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The district court's order was entered on May 30, 2025, and the appeal period expired on June 30, 2025. McKeever filed his notice of appeal on July 9, 2025, which is beyond the 30-day jurisdictional deadline.

This decision means that the merits of McKeever's original 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint will not be reviewed by the appellate court. For legal professionals and regulated entities involved in civil litigation, this serves as a critical reminder of the strict adherence required for appellate filing deadlines. Failure to file a timely notice of appeal, without a valid extension or reopening, results in a loss of jurisdiction, as emphasized by the Supreme Court's ruling in Bowles v. Russell.

What to do next

Ensure all notices of appeal are filed within the 30-day jurisdictional deadline after the entry of a district court's final judgment or order.
If an extension or reopening of the appeal period is necessary, follow the procedures outlined in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6).

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6558 WILLIAM N. MCKEEVE R, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NO RTH CAROL INA; GREENE COUNTY DISTR ICT COURT; PIT T COUNTY DISTRIC T COURT; SAND Y MEYERS; FAR RIS DIXON; PAU LA DANCE; MAT T SASSER; MAGISTRATE PATRICK C OBB; MAG ISTRATE MCCRORY; M AGISTRATE WO OTEN; JUDG E CHRIS ROGER SONS; JUDG E ANNETT TUR T; HOLLY JONES; M. HARDY; SEAN P. KE ENAN; DAVID PHILIPELLIE; T AYLOR CARRAWA Y; PATRICK BRO ADWAY; JUDGE MARVIN BLOU NT; JUDGE JEFF F OSTER; JAY DUPRE E; STEVE HAGE N; CARROLL THOM AS; BRADLE Y HATCH; DOUG STO CKS; PHILIP HECK; DEBRA WARRE N; CASEY OBRI EN; NICK BARNH AM; LIEUTENA NT G AY; SERGEANT B ARRETT; L IEUTENANT HIC KS; JACKIE ROGERS; CAP TAIN BOYETT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the Eastern District o f North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Jud ge. (5:25 - ct - 03052 -D- RJ) Submitted: February 26, 202 6 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FL OYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

2 William N. McKeever, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

3 PER CURIAM: William N. McKeever, a North Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 1 We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of app eal was not timely filed. In civil cases, p arties 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 unde r Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing o f a notice of appeal in a civil cas e is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bow les v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court entered its ord er and judgment on May 30, 2 025, and the appeal period expi red on Monday, June 30, 2025. McKeever filed his no tice of appeal on July 9, 2025. 2 Because McKeever fa iled to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dism iss 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 1 McKeever has filed a motion to redact names and fo r the appointment of counsel. We deny this motion. 2 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that th e postmark date appearing on th e envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date McKeever could have delivered the notice to prison officials fo r mailing to the court. Fe d. R. App. P. 4(c) (1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).