USCA11 Case: 24-12718 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12718 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

TAMIKA SEAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ANDREA DAVID-VEGA, JUDGE ROBERT V. RODATUS, ASHLEY STINSON,

Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 24-12718 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12718

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-04922-LMM ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Tamika Seay appeals from the district court’s May 28, 2024, order denying various of her post-judgment motions and imposing filing sanctions on her, instructing the clerk not to docket any fur- ther submissions from her other than a notice of appeal. We issued a jurisdictional question about whether Seay’s August 19, 2024, no- tice of appeal is timely, and, specifically, whether her June 7, 2024, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion effectively tolled the appeal period. Although the parties did not respond, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Ad- min., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010). Because the 60-day pe- riod for filing a notice of appeal ended on July 29, 2024, we con- clude that Seay’s August 19, 2024, notice of appeal is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). Moreover, if the June 7 filing could be liberally con- strued as a Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) tolling motion, that would still not render Seay’s notice of appeal timely because the district court effectively disposed of that filing on the day that Seay filed it based on the filing restrictions imposed in the May 28 order. We thus USCA11 Case: 24-12718 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-12718 Opinion of the Court 3

conclude that, even if the June 7 filing effectively tolled the appeal period, Seay had until August 6, 2024, to file a notice of appeal. As such, her August 19 notice is also untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (a)(4)(A). Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.