Dallas Saville Tillman v. MR. ROTH, PFC Deputy; MR. WRIGHT, Sergeant Deputy; MR. DALTON, Lieutenant Deputy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6383
DALLAS SAVILLE TILLMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. ROTH, PFC Deputy; MR. WRIGHT, Sergeant Deputy; MR. DALTON,
Lieutenant Deputy,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00770-MHL-MRC)
Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: April 15, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dallas Saville Tillman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dallas Saville Tillman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 amended complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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).
The district court entered its order on December 4, 2023, and the appeal period
expired on January 3, 2024. Tillman filed a notice of appeal on April 12, 2024.* We
remanded for the limited purpose of determining whether any of Tillman’s postjudgment
filings could be construed as a timely motion to reopen the appeal period under Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(6) and, if so, whether reopening of the appeal period was warranted. Tillman
v. Roth, No. 24-6383, 2024 WL 4274462 (4th Cir. Sept. 24, 2024). On remand, the district
court found that none of Tillman’s postjudgment filings could be construed as timely
motions to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6) and declined to reopen the appeal
* For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the
envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Tillman could have delivered
the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
period. Because Tillman failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the dismissal order
and the district court did not reopen 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --