Court Opinion

ID: 9895022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:49.312851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:05.640311
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6595    Doc: 9        Filed: 11/02/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                          UNPUBLISHED

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                            No. 23-6594

        KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

                          Plaintiff - Appellant,

                    v.

        DR. ALLEN, Medical Team - Psychiatrist; DR. FURNESS, Medical Team - Doctor;
        MEDICAL CLINICIAN, Intake Physician/Inmate Evaluation; LIEUTENANT
        DALTON, C.I.T. & Intake,

                          Defendants - Appellees.

                                            No. 23-6595

        KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

                          Plaintiff - Appellant,

                    v.

        UNKNOWN INMATE IN ROOM 63, at Kershaw Correctional Inst Cypress
        Building; UNKNOWN INMATE IN ROOM 13, at Kershaw Correctional Inst
        Cypress Building; UNKNOWN INMATE IN ROOM 14, at Kershaw Correctional
        Inst Cypress Building,

                          Defendants - Appellees.

                                            No. 23-6596
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6595   Doc: 9        Filed: 11/02/2023   Pg: 2 of 4

        KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

                         Plaintiff - Appellant,

                   v.

        DEPUTY WARDEN PALMER, In Official Capacity; SERGEANT HESTER, In
        Official Capacity; SERGEANT SALAZAAR, In Official Capacity; LIEUTENANT
        PERKS, In Official Capacity,

                         Defendant - Appellees.

                                           No. 23-6608

        KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

                         Plaintiff - Appellant,

                   v.

        DIRECTOR BRIAN, SC Department of Corrections,

                         Defendant - Appellee.

                                           No. 23-6615

        KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

                         Plaintiff - Appellant,

                   v.

        KIRKLAND, General Manager; UNKNOWN 1, General Manager; UNKNOWN 2,
        General Manager,

                         Defendants - Appellees.

                                                  2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6595      Doc: 9        Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge; Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District
        Judge. (6:22-cv-02935-HMH; 6:22-cv-04330-HMH; 6:22-cv-02385-RMG; 6:22-cv-
        03176-HMH; 6:22-cv-02796-HMH)

        Submitted: September 12, 2023                                Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Khammesherma Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6595       Doc: 9         Filed: 11/02/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In each of these consolidated appeals, Khammesherma Smith, a South Carolina

        inmate and district court three-striker, has filed a late notice of appeal. We have “an

        independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction.” Porter v. Zook,

        803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[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). A notice of appeal in a civil case in which the United States or its

        officer or agency is not a party must be filed no more than 30 days after the entry of the

        district court’s final judgment or order, 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). See 28 U.S.C. § 2107.

               Here, because none of Smith’s notices of appeal were filed within 30 days of the

        entry of the relevant district court order, and because the district court did not extend or

        reopen the appeal periods, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as

        moot Smith’s motions for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees under the Prison

        Litigation Reform Act. 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

                                                      4