UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2376
MARK A. PANOWICZ,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SHARON L. HANCOCK, in individual capacity; SHARON L.
HANCOCK, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Charles County (in
official capacity),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:11-cv-02417-DKC)
Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: May 12, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Panowicz, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Scott Curtis, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Michele J. McDonald, Assistant
Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Panowicz seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration and to reopen sovereign
immunity issues. Parties are accorded 30 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), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or
reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
However, if a party moves for an extension of time to appeal
within 30 days after expiration of the original appeal period
and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause, a district
court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899,
900-01 (4th Cir. 1989).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
October 5, 2015. Panowicz filed his notice of appeal after the
expiration of the 30-day appeal period but within the 30-day
excusable neglect period. Because Panowicz’s notice of appeal
offered some excuse for his untimeliness, we construe it as a
request for an extension of time accompanying his notice of
appeal. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court
for the limited purpose of determining whether Panowicz has
demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an
extension of the 30-day appeal period. The record, as
2
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration.
REMANDED
3