Deane v. Marshalls, Inc
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALICE M. DEANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARSHALLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00031-jct)
October 11, 2006
October 18, 2006
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alice M. Deane, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Alice M. Deane seeks to appeal the district court's order denying her leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her civil action. The district court's final order was entered on the Deane's notice of appeal was not received
docket on May 25, 2006.
by the district court until July 10, 2006. Although Deane's notice of appeal was filed beyond the thirty-day appeal period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), she states in her notice of appeal that she did not receive the court's final order until July 7, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed both within thirty days of the expiration of the appeal period and within seven days of the date Deane asserts she received notice of the district court's entry of a final order. Thus, Deane's statement in her notice of appeal may
be properly construed as either a motion for an extension of time in which to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or as a motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Deane can satisfy the requirements for either an extension of time or a reopening of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned
to this court for further consideration.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?