Court Opinion

ID: 9962861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:01:06.24992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:29.138131
License: Public Domain

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

                                             UNPUBLISHED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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 2 of 3

        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).

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

                                                     3