Brittany Tomlinson v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1999 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/14/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1999

BRITTANY M. TOMLINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; CT CORPORATION SYSTEM; TRAVIS SCHACKMANN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:25-cv-00053-FL)

Submitted: May 1, 2026 Decided: May 14, 2026

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brittany M. Tomlinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1999 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/14/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Brittany M. Tomlinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. * We dismiss the appeal as untimely and duplicative.

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, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s judgment was entered on March 14, 2025, and the appeal period expired on April 14, 2025. The instant notice of appeal was filed on August 22, 2025, and is duplicative of Tomlinson’s prior appeal of the same judgment. Tomlinson v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., No. 25-1268, 2025 WL 2105006 (4th Cir. July 28, 2025) (affirming district court’s judgment dismissing Tomlinson’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

Because Tomlinson’s notice of appeal is untimely and the appeal is duplicative of her prior appeal, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

* Tomlinson has also filed motions for monetary damages, to supplement the record, and to remand for a limited purpose. We deny all pending motions.