Jimmy Tinsley v. Chadwick Dotson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 24-7062
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7062 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7062

JIMMY EDWARD TINSLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00270-MFU)

Submitted: September 8, 2025 Decided: October 1, 2025

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Edward Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7062 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Edward Tinsley appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition. * The district court denied Tinsley’s Rule 60(b) motion as untimely. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(c)(1). We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error in the district

court’s order. See Justus v. Clarke, 78 F.4th 97, 104 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of

review). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, see United

States v. Williams, 56 F.4th 366, 370 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023), and affirm the district court’s

order. Tinsley v. Clarke, No. 7:21-cv-00270-MFU (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2024). 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.

AFFIRMED

* The district court’s order also terminated Tinsley’s other pending motions, including his motions for an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel. We discern no reversible error in the district court’s effective denial of those motions.