UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6937
MR. DOUGLAS M. ROSEBY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MR. PAUL E. BUDLOW, et al.,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:10-cv-00417-AW)
Submitted: October 7, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas Roseby, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas M. Roseby seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and has
moved to place his appeal in abeyance. The order he seeks to
challenge was entered by the district court on March 9, 2010.
Roseby filed his notice of appeal, which was dated
June 28, 2010, on July 2, 2010. Even giving Roseby the benefit
of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), his notice of
appeal was untimely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). In
his notice, however, Roseby indicated that he was unaware of the
district court’s dismissal order until June 21, 2010. Under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time
to file an appeal if: (1) the moving party did not receive
notice of entry of judgment within twenty-one days after entry;
(2) a motion to reopen the appeal period is filed within 180
days of entry of judgment or within fourteen days of receiving
notice from the district court, whichever is earlier; and (3) no
party would be prejudiced. We remand to the district court so
it may determine whether Roseby is entitled to have his time to
file an appeal reopened under Rule 4(a)(6). The record, as
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration. We also deny as moot Roseby’s motion to place
his appeal in abeyance.
REMANDED
2