UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7250

ELIA T. WATKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NURSE FRANCISCO DERVONA, The Spring Grove Administration in charge of 

nursing; DR. ALAM, Spring Grove’s CEO; DR. PATEL, Medical Doctor and the 

nursing dept. who continued to send Mr. Dervona over to Smith-East,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:23-cv-02536-SAG)

Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elia T. Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7250 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Elia T. Watkins appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint without prejudice as duplicative∗ and denying his motion to reopen. We affirm.

As a threshold matter, we are required to inquire into our own jurisdiction, even if 

the parties do not dispute it. Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016). 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).

“‘[I]f a post-judgment motion is [timely] filed . . . and calls into question the 

correctness of that judgment it should be treated as a motion under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 59(e), 

however it may be formally styled.’” MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 

277 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978)). “A 

motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of 

the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The timely filing of a Rule 59(e) motion tolls the 

appeal period until the motion is resolved. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). 

The district court entered its dismissal order on October 10, 2023. Watkins filed the 

motion to reopen, requesting that the court reconsider the dismissal, on October 30, 2023. 

∗ The dismissal order is final and appealable because the district court did not grant 

leave to amend. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7250 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Thus, we construe Watkins’ motion to reopen as a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion. Because 

Watkins timely appealed the district court’s denial of that motion, we have jurisdiction over 

this appeal.

Having established we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s orders, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because 

Watkins’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he 

has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 

177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit 

rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm. 

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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7250 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 3