UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1064

WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARBERA DILLIGARD, Dr.; 

RONALD MCWHIRT, Dr.; JOSEPH DAWSON, JR., Mr.; JOSEPH DAWSON, 

III; ELIJAH RIVERS, Mr.; OWENS BUSH, Dr.; JESSICA FREEMAN, 

Mrs.; JUNE MULLINS, Mrs.; NANCY MCGINNLEY, Dr.; HILARY 

DOUGLAS, Dr.; NANCY COOK, Mrs.; ANDERSON W. TOWNSEND, Mr.; 

ALICE MONTGOMERY, Mrs., 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00715-RLW) 

Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Wesley Edward Smith, III, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, which 

sought reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing 

his civil action for improper venue.* We dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed. 

In civil cases in which the United States is not a 

party, parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to file a notice of 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). A district court may 

extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves for 

an extension within thirty days after expiration of the original 

appeal period and the party has shown excusable neglect or good 

cause warranting an extension. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); 

Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989). 

A bare notice of appeal does not constitute a motion for an 

extension of time, however, if “no request for additional time 

is manifest.” Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167, 1168-69 (4th Cir. 

 *

 Although Smith did not specify whether his post-judgment 

“Reply in Support of Venue Opposing Court Decision” was filed 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b), because it was filed 

within the ten-day time limit for Rule 59(e) motions, it is 

treated as such. See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th 

Cir. 1978). 

2 
3 

1983) (en banc). The time period within which to file a notice 

of appeal is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., 

Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal citations 

omitted). 

The district court’s order denying Smith’s motion was 

entered on the docket on December 2, 2008. The notice of appeal 

was filed on January 6, 2009. Smith did not move for an 

extension of time nor did his notice of appeal include a request 

for additional time. Because Smith 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 the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED