`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 23-7253
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JONATHAN JAMES NEWELL,
`
`
`
`
`
`ROY COOPER GOVERNOR’S COVID-19 TASK FORCE; MANDY COHEN;
`JOSHUA STEIN; ERIK A. HOOKS; TODD ISHEE; NORTH CAROLINA
`DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY; WARREN COUNTY
`DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; WARREN COUNTY
`MUNICIPALITY; ABC 11 EYEWITNESS NEWS; WRAL NEWS,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff - Appellant,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants - Appellees.
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
`Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-ct-03378-M)
`
`
`
`
`Submitted: February 27, 2024
`
`
`Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`Decided: March 1, 2024
`
`
`
`Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`
`Jonathan James Newell, Appellant Pro Se.
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`Jonathan James Newell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
`
`“motion to reopen or vacate the judgment, to amend complaint for new rule retroactive
`
`adjudication.” 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 October 23, 2023. Newell filed the notice of
`
`appeal on December 6, 2023.* Because Newell 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
`
`
`* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
`appeal is the earliest date Newell could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
`mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
`
`
`
`2
`
`