UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1447
ELIZABETH A. REEVES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ST. MARY’S COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; BOARD OF
APPEALS FOR ST. MARY’S COUNTY, MARYLAND;
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FOR ST.
MARY’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; HEALTH DEPARTMENT;
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; SUSAN
MCNEAL; HOWARD THOMPSON; SPENCER SCRIBER;
TERRY MILLER; MARGARET ABRAHAM; LAWRENCE E.
ROWLAND; JON B. GRIMM; DANIEL H. RALEY;
SHELBY P. GUAZZO; J. THOMAS MATTINGLY, JR.;
JOSEPH ANDERSON; JULIE RANDALL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-2449-8)
Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth A. Reeves, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Karp, ALLEN,
KARPINSKI, BRYANT & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth A. Reeves’ civil suit was dismissed by final
order filed on June 13, 2003, and entered three days later on
June 16. In her “Motion for Reconsideration and Recusal of Judge
Williams,” filed on August 15, 2003, Reeves alleged that she did
not timely receive notice of the court’s final order and that she
wished to appeal. In her untimely notice of appeal, Reeves again
alleged that she did not timely receive notice that her action had
been dismissed. We construe Reeves’ statement in her “Motion for
Reconsideration” as a motion to reopen the time to note an appeal
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). See Sanders v. United States, 113
F.3d 184, 187-88 (11th Cir. 1997); Ogden v. San Juan County, 32
F.3d 452, 454 (10th Cir. 1994).
Rule 4(a)(6) permits a district court to reopen the
appeal period if: (a) the motion is filed within 180 days after the
judgment or order is entered or within seven days after the moving
party receives notice of the entry, whichever is earlier; (b) the
court finds that the moving party was entitled to notice of the
entry of the judgment or order sought to be appealed but did not
receive the notice from the district court or any party within
twenty-one days after entry; and (c) the court finds that no party
would be prejudiced. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
Here, it is unclear whether Reeves has met the
requirements of the Rule. Accordingly, we remand the case to the
- 3 -
district court for it to determine whether Reeves can satisfy the
requirements of Rule 4(a)(6). We express no opinion as to whether
Reeves has met the requirements of the Rule. The record, as
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
review. 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.
REMANDED
- 4 -