Andrew Joseph Dicks v. RONALD S. WEBER, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7085
ANDREW JOSEPH DICKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RONALD S. WEBER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02219-LKG)
Submitted: March 13, 2025 Decided: March 27, 2025
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Joseph Dicks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Joseph Dicks seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice as successive and unauthorized. 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 September 12, 2024, and the appeal period
expired on October 15. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (relevant counting rule). Dicks filed
the notice of appeal on November 5.* Because Dicks 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
* Due to conflicting evidence in the record, we remanded this case to the district
court for the limited purpose of determining when Dicks delivered his notice of appeal to
prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(A); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing prison mailbox rule). The district court found that
Dicks did so on November 5.

-- 2 of 2 --