USCA4 Appeal: 24-7085      Doc: 6        Filed: 01/29/2025     Pg: 1 of 2




                                            UNPUBLISHED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: January 23, 2025                                       Decided: January 29, 2025


        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.


        Andrew Joseph Dicks, Appellant Pro Se.


        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-7085       Doc: 6         Filed: 01/29/2025      Pg: 2 of 2




        PER CURIAM:

               Andrew Joseph Dicks seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

        

 petition without prejudice as successive and unauthorized. 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, 

 (2007).

               The district court entered its order on September 12, 2024, so the appeal period

        expired on October 15. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (relevant counting rule). Dicks

        wrote on his notice of appeal that he filed the document on September 19 and certified that

        he sent a copy to the Maryland Office of the Attorney General the same day. The envelope,

        however, was stamped by the United States Postal Service on November 4 and by prison

        officials on November 6. Due to this conflicting evidence, we cannot determine whether

        Dicks timely filed his notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(A); Houston v. Lack,

        

 (1988) (establishing prison mailbox rule). Accordingly, we remand 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. The record, as supplemented,

        will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

                                                                                        REMANDED




                                                      2