UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1268
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRENDA J. DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:97-cv-02509-FNS)
Submitted: August 25, 2008 Decided: November 3, 2008
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to vacate an earlier order denying
Wilder’s motion to reopen a 1997 civil action. For the reasons
that follow, we remand to the district court.
In civil cases, parties are accorded thirty days after the
entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). A district court may extend
the time to appeal upon a motion filed within thirty days after
expiration of the prescribed time and a showing of excusable
neglect or good cause. This appeal period is “mandatory and
jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,
264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229
(1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on its docket on
January 2, 2008. Wilder filed his notice of appeal on February 21,
2008, which was after the thirty-day appeal period expired but
before the expiration of the thirty-day excusable neglect period.
In his notice of appeal, Wilder stated that, in the event that
timeliness was an issue for his notice of appeal, he was “falsely
accused and incarcerated in Baltimore County” from January 15,
2008, until February 19, 2008. We liberally construe Wilder’s pro
se filing as a motion for an extension of time to file his appeal.
The district court did not rule on this motion.
Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable
neglect period and because the district court has not ruled on the
2
motion for an extension, we remand the case to the district court
for the limited purpose of enabling the court to determine whether
Wilder has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an
extension of the thirty-day appeal period. The record, as
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration. 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
3