UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1695
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
S. RANDOLPH SENGEL; DIETRA Y. TRENT; MARK R.
WARNER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko,
O’CONNELL & SARSFIELD, Rockville, Maryland; Martha Murphey Parrish,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Sindram appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction.
We vacate the district court’s order and remand for consideration
of the motion on the merits.
After the district court dismissed Sindram’s complaint,
Sindram timely noted an appeal. Subsequently, Sindram filed a
motion construed by the district court as a motion for
reconsideration. Believing that the notice of appeal divested it
of jurisdiction to consider the motion, the district court denied
the motion.
This court has declared that “when a Rule 60(b) motion is
filed while a judgment is on appeal, the district court has
jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and should do so promptly.”
Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir. 1999).
In Fobian, this Court instructed as to the following when a Rule
60(b) motion is filed after an appeal has been noted:
[i]f the district court determines that the motion is
meritless, as experience demonstrates is often the case,
the court should deny the motion forthwith; any appeal
from the denial can be consolidated with the appeal from
the underlying order. If the district court is inclined
to grant the motion, it should issue a short memorandum
so stating. The movant can then request a limited remand
from this court for that purpose. By saving judicial
resources and avoiding expense and delay, this procedure
accords with the overarching mandate in the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure that the rules “shall be construed to
secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
every action.”
- 2 -
Id. at 891.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying
the motion for reconsideration and remand for consideration of the
motion on the merits. In so doing, we express no opinion as to the
merits of the motion. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -