UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7402

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART; FCI CUMBERLAND; USAG JEFF 

SESSIONS,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 19-7606

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART; FCI CUMBERLAND; USAG JEFFERSON B. 

SESSIONS III,

Respondents - Appellees.

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

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01745-GLR)

Submitted: January 29, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020
2

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

No. 18-7402 dismissed, and No. 19-7606 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In No. 18-7402, William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition. We previously remanded this case to the 

district court to determine if Davis’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion and notice of appeal were 

timely filed. Davis v. Stewart, 771 F. App’x 194, 195 (4th Cir. 2019). The district court 

determined that they were not timely filed. Davis appeals this order in No. 19-7606. We 

agree with the district court and therefore dismiss in No. 18-7402 and affirm in No. 19-

7606.

“[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). In a case in which the federal 

government or a federal officer is a party, the appellant must file a notice of appeal within 

60 days after entry of the district court’s order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). However, the 

filing of certain postjudgment motions, including a Rule 60 motion filed within 28 days of 

the entry of judgment, will cause the appeal period to run from the entry of the order 

disposing of the last such motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). If a party notes an appeal 

after the court enters judgment but before the court disposes of a motion listed in Rule 

4(a)(4)(A), the notice of appeal takes effect only when the last remaining motion is 

resolved. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i)

The district court entered its dismissal order on August 1, 2018. Davis dated his 

Rule 60 motion that day, but the district court did not receive it until October 4. Similarly, 

Davis dated his notice of appeal August 10, but this Court did not receive it until October 

29. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). Moreover, Davis did not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 
4

4(c)(1)(A), nor did he timely respond to the district court’s order on remand instructing 

him to provide evidence of his compliance with this rule. Therefore, we conclude that the 

district court did not err in finding that Davis’ Rule 60 motion was filed more than 28 days 

after entry of the court’s dismissal order and that his notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Accordingly, we dismiss Davis’ appeal in No. 18-7402 and affirm the district 

court’s order in No. 19-7606. We deny Davis’ motion to consolidate as moot. 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.

No. 18-7402, DISMISSED;

No. 19-7606, AFFIRMED