Keith Barkley v. State of Maryland
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00957-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Keith Barkley. [15-6494]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
STATE OF MARYLAND; TYRONE
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
August 25, 2015
October 14, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Keith Barkley, Appellant Pro Se.
Nichole Cherie Gatewood,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Keith Barkley appeals the district court’s order denying
asserts that the district court erred in granting Defendants’
motion to dismiss.
We affirm in part, vacate in part, and
Defendant Paul Lee was not served in the district court and
statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, meaning that
pleading its existence.”
Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d
648, 653 (4th Cir. 2006).
Only in limited circumstances, such
pursuant to § 1915,” may the district court consider a statute
of limitations defense sua sponte.
Id. at 656.
this action was filed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Nevertheless, the record does not show that the district
court complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 before dismissing the
claims against Lee.
“If a defendant is not served within 120
days after the complaint is filed, the court — on motion or on
its own after notice to the plaintiff — must dismiss the action
Pg: 3 of 3
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service
If the plaintiff can show good cause for his
failure to serve, “the court must extend the time for service
for an appropriate period.”
Accordingly, we conclude that
prior to dismissing Barkley’s claims against Lee, Barkley is
entitled to an opportunity to show good cause for failure to
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error as
to the dismissal of Barkley’s remaining claims against the State
of Maryland, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services, the Maryland Reception Diagnostic and Classification
Center, and Warden Tyrone Crowder.
Accordingly, we vacate and
remand the district court’s judgment dismissing Barkley’s claim
against Lee, but affirm as to the remaining defendants for the
reasons stated by the district court.
Barkley v. Maryland, No.
1:14-cv-00957-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2015).
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this Court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
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?