UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7184
ANTHONY MUSTAFAN CHISLEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JAMES HOLWAGER, Chief Psychologist; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR.,
Assistant Warden; SHERRY HAFERKAMP, Psychologist; BOOTH,
Psychologist; HARR, Social Worker, et al., individually and
in their own official capacities,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:09-cv-02099-DKC)
Submitted: March 16, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Mustafan Chisley, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Mustafan Chisley seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint. In civil actions in which the United States or its
officer or agency is not a party, a notice of appeal must be
filed with the district court within thirty days after entry of
the district court’s final judgment or order. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a
civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court may extend the
filing time if “a party so moves no later than 30 days after the
time prescribed by . . . Rule 4(a) expires” and the party shows
excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i)-
(ii).
The district court’s order was entered on July 9,
2010. Therefore, Chisley had thirty days, or until August 9,
2010, to file a notice of appeal. On August 20, 2010, Chisley
filed a “motion for reconsideration of notice of appeal,”
asserting that he had submitted a timely notice of appeal but
that the district court had not acknowledged it. * In support, he
*
We assume the date appearing on the motion for
reconsideration is the earliest date it could have been properly
delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court.
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
proffered a carbon copy of the alleged notice of appeal.
However, the district court’s docket sheet shows no such entry.
We liberally construe Chisley’s motion as a timely request for
an extension of the thirty-day period. Because the district
court has not ruled on the motion for extension, we remand this
case to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling
the court to determine whether Chisley has shown excusable
neglect or good cause warranting an extension of time to appeal.
The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this
court, for further consideration.
REMANDED
3