Lithonia Harris v. Officer Anthony Tillman, No. 13-10687 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10687 Date Filed: 09/17/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-10687 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00025-LGW-JEG LITHONIA HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHERIFF BILLY DELOCH, Appling County, et al., Defendants, OFFICER ANTHONY TILLMAN, a.k.a. Talmadge, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ________________________ (September 17, 2013) Before DUBINA, WILSON, and HILL, Circuit Judges. Case: 13-10687 Date Filed: 09/17/2013 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Lithonia J. Harris appeals the dismissal as time barred of his ยง 1983 action against Officer Anthony Tillman, arguing that his failure to effect timely service of process was due to inadvertence and delays due to no fault of [his own]. The Magistrate Judge, who prepared a report and recommendation on Officer Tillman s motion to dismiss, agreed and recommended that the motion be denied. The district court, however, rejected this recommendation, finding that Harris failed to supply either the correct address or name for defendant Tillman, causing the excessive delay in serving him and further causing the statute of limitations to expire before service had been effected. The court further held that Harris subsequent amendment of his complaint to provide the defendant s correct name did not relate back to the filing of his complaint because Tillman had no way of knowing he was being sued within the relevant time period. Accordingly, the district court granted Tillman s motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff s complaint was not timely filed. We have reviewed the record and considered the chain of events that led to the dismissal of Harris complaint. On balance, we conclude that the district court s judgment of dismissal should be affirmed. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
