Toccara Yvonne Puller v. Lieutenant Quarles; Sergeant Stone

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7168
TOCCARA YVONNE PULLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT QUARLES; SERGEANT STONE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:24-cv-00696-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: February 28, 2025 Decided: April 14, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Toccara Yvonne Puller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM:
Toccarra Yvonne Puller appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order directing her
to submit a statement of assets and a prisoner trust account report for the six-month period
immediately proceeding the filing of the complaint.∗ Puller filed the requested documents
shortly after the deadline for filing, and one of the documents, the Statement of Assets, was
dated and signed under penalty of perjury before the deadline passed. Puller contends that
prison administrative delays prevented her from timely complying with the order. Her
subsequent objections to the district court’s dismissal order were filed within 28 days after
entry of the district court’s judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because the district court
should have construed Puller’s filings as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment,
see Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003), we vacate the judgment and remand
for the district court to consider the motion and documents in the first instance. We express
no opinion on the ultimate disposition of Puller’s claims. 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 in the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
∗ As the district court did not provide leave to amend, the order is final. See Britt v.
DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).
2

-- 2 of 2 --