Wilson Ochar v. Ameris Bank - Appeal Dismissed in Part, Affirmed in Part

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24 - 2202 WILSON OCHAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMERIS BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Eastern D istrict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:24 - cv - 00995 - CMH - WBP) Submitted: February 27, 202 6 Decided: March 4, 2026 Before KING and WYNN, C ircuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judg e. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion. Wilson Ochar, Appellant Pro Se. Josh uan Counts Cumby, Nashville, Tennessee, Lauren Baio Pultro, ADAMS & REESE LLP, Washington, D.C., for App ellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Wilson Ochar seeks to appeal the district co urt’s orde r dismissing his consolidated actions. 1 We dismiss t h is part of th e app eal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, pa rties 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 civi l case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bow les v. Russell, 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 (2007). The district court entered its ord er on August 15, 202 4. The appeal period began to run on Aug ust 20, 2024, when the court deni ed Ochar’s motion for reconsid eration. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The appeal period expired on September 19, 2024. Ochar fil ed his notice of appeal on December 2, 2 024. Because Ochar failed to file a tim ely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal p eriod, we dismiss h is appeal from the order dismissing his co nsolidated actions. 2 Ochar also appeals the district cou rt’s August 20, 2024, ord er imposing a prefiling injunction. We con clude that Ochar’s December 2, 2024, notice o f appeal was timely as 1 Ochar moves for leave to file an amended brief. We grant this motion. Ochar als o moves to c onsolidate his multiple appeals, for leave to file an amended complain t, to accelerate case processing, and to impose sanctions. We deny these motions. 2 To the extent Ochar seeks to appeal the dist rict court’s order denying his mo tion for reconsideration, the appeal as to that ord er is also untimely.

3 to this order because the district co urt did not set out its judgm ent in a separate document. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (a), (c)(2)(B); see C.Y. Wholesale, Inc. v. Holcomb, 965 F.3d 541, 545 (7th Cir. 2020) (noting “district court[’s] fail[ure] to enter a standalone do cument containing the injunction, as required by Federal Rule[] of Civil Procedure .. . 58(a)”). We have reviewed the district court’s prefiling injunction and discern no abuse of discretion, see Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4t h Cir. 2004) (providi ng standard of review), so we affirm. Accordingly, we dismiss the ap peal as to the district court’s dismis sal order and we affirm the prefiling injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts an d legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN P ART, AFFIRMED IN PART