USCA4 Appeal: 24-6383      Doc: 26         Filed: 09/24/2024    Pg: 1 of 2




                                            UNPUBLISHED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: September 19, 2024                               Decided: September 24, 2024


        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.


        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.


        Dallas Saville Tillman, Appellant Pro Se.


        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6383      Doc: 26             Filed: 09/24/2024   Pg: 2 of 2




        PER CURIAM:

               Dallas Saville Tillman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 

 complaint. In civil actions, parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of

        the district court’s final judgment 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, 

 (2007).

               The district court entered its order on December 4, 2023, and the appeal period

        expired on January 3, 2024. Tillman’s notice of appeal was postmarked April 12, 2024. ∗

        As a result, his appeal is untimely.

               However, a week prior to filing the notice of appeal, Tillman filed a notice of

        address change in which he implied that he had not received the court’s judgment.

        Accordingly, we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether

        any of Tillman’s post-judgment filings may be construed as timely motions to reopen the

        appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6) and, if so, whether Tillman is entitled to a reopening of

        the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for

        further consideration.

                                                                                       REMANDED



               ∗
                For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the
        envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date that Tillman could have
        delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1);
        Houston v. Lack, 

 (1988).

                                                        2