Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-12718/USCOURTS-ca11-24-12718-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrea David-Vega
Appellee
Robert V. Rodatus
Appellee
Tamika Seay
Appellant
Ashley Stinson
Appellee
United States Department of Justice
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 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 further submissions from her other than a notice of appeal. We issued 

a jurisdictional question about whether Seay’s August 19, 2024, notice 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 Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010). Because the 60-day period for filing a notice of appeal ended on July 29, 2024, we conclude 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 construed 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: 2 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.

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