Jimmy Edward Tinsley v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7062
JIMMY EDWARD TINSLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON, Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00270-MFU)
Submitted: September 8, 2025 Decided: October 1, 2025
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Edward Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Edward Tinsley appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition.* The district court denied Tinsley’s Rule 60(b) motion as untimely. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(c)(1). We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error in the district
court’s order. See Justus v. Clarke, 78 F.4th 97, 104 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of
review). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, see United
States v. Williams, 56 F.4th 366, 370 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023), and affirm the district court’s
order. Tinsley v. Clarke, No. 7:21-cv-00270-MFU (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2024). 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
* The district court’s order also terminated Tinsley’s other pending motions,
including his motions for an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel. We
discern no reversible error in the district court’s effective denial of those motions.

-- 2 of 2 --