Mark Panowicz v. Sharon Hancock

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-02417-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court. Mailed to: Mark Panowicz. [999820884] [15-2376]

Appeal: 15-2376

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2376

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Panowicz seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration and to reopen sovereign
immunity issues.
of

the

district

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry
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

limited

the

demonstrated
extension

of

purpose

excusable
the

of

determining

neglect

30-day

or

appeal
2

good

whether
cause

period.

Panowicz

has

warranting

an

The

record,

as

Appeal: 15-2376

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/12/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration.
REMANDED

3