Richard Martin v. Howard Walsh, III

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to compel [999704278-2]; denying Motion to seal [999704267-2], remanding case for limited purpose [4cca retains jurisdiction] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-2302-GJH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Richard Martin. [999783395] [15-2138]

Appeal: 15-2138

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2138

RICHARD MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOWARD J. WALSH, III, Esq.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(8:15-cv-2302-GJH)

Submitted:

February 4, 2016

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 29, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Martin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2138

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Richard Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
(2012).

Parties to a civil action have 30 days following the

entry of the district court’s final order or judgment in which
to

file

a

notice

of

appeal.

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

4(a)(1)(A).

However, the district court may extend the time to file a notice
of appeal if a party moves for an extension of the appeal period
within

30

days

period

and

after

the

demonstrates

warrant an extension.

expiration

excusable

of

the

neglect

original

or

good

appeal

cause

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see Washington

v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989).
timely

filing

of

a

to

notice

jurisdictional requirement.”

of

appeal

in

a

civil

“[T]he

case

is

a

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

214 (2007).
The

district

August 21, 2015.

court’s

final

judgment

was

entered

on

Martin filed a pleading construed as a notice

of appeal on September 22, 2015, after the expiration of the 30day

appeal

period

but

within

the

excusable

neglect

period.

Martin’s notice of appeal contained language that we liberally
construe

as

a

request

for

an

extension

of

time

to

appeal.

Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the
limited purpose of determining whether Martin has demonstrated
excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the
2

Appeal: 15-2138

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/29/2016

30-day appeal period.

Pg: 3 of 3

The record, as supplemented, will then be

returned to this court for further consideration.
We deny Martin’s motions to seal and to compel.
REMANDED

3