4th Cir.

Nealey v. White

May 27, 2026 ·26-6093 ·Per Curiam · By Aisha Johnson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by Christopher L. Nealey because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The court held that the failure to file within the thirty-day window was a jurisdictional bar that could not be overcome by Nealey's pending motions.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / --:--

Background

Christopher L. Nealey filed a civil rights action under Section one thousand nine hundred and eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, including Dr. David E. White and various medical staff. Nealey sought to appeal this order but filed his notice of appeal on January nine, two thousand twenty-six, well after the district court’s order on September thirty, two thousand twenty-five.

The court’s reasoning

The court explained that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure four point one point A, parties have thirty days after the entry of a final judgment to file a notice of appeal. The court cited Bowles versus Russell to state that timely filing is a jurisdictional requirement. Nealey filed his notice of appeal on January nine, two thousand twenty-six, which was after the October thirty, two thousand twenty-five deadline. The court noted that Nealey did not request an extension or reopening of the appeal period under the applicable rules, despite claiming medical issues prevented timely filing.

[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)

What it means going forward

The appeal is dismissed, leaving the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in place. Nealey’s motions for appointment of counsel and production of records are denied as a consequence of the dismissal.