Gregory Krug v. Victor Loranth

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND filed by DWS, JAW and HFF [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01829-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Gregory Charles Krug FCI MILAN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1000 Milan, MI 48160-0000. [999658936] [15-6789]

Appeal: 15-6789

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6789

GREGORY C. KRUG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VICTOR LORANTH, in his individual capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-01829-DCN)

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided:

September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory C. Krug, Appellant Pro Se.
Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6789

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gregory C. Krug seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting
relief

the

on

magistrate

Krug’s

judge’s

complaint

filed

recommendation
pursuant

to

and

denying

Bivens

v.

Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).

We remand for consideration of whether reopening of the

appeal period is merited.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
parties are accorded 60 days after the entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App.
P.

4(a)(1)(B),

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).
notice

of

appeal

requirement.”

in

a

civil

“[T]he timely filing of a

case

is

a

jurisdictional

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
January 6, 2015.
2015. *

Krug filed his notice of appeal on May 14,

Krug’s notice of appeal is clearly untimely.

However,

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the

*

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on Krug’s notice of appeal is the earliest date it
could have been properly delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988).

2

Appeal: 15-6789

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

time to file an appeal if: (1) the moving party did not receive
notice of entry of judgment within 21 days after entry; (2) the
motion is filed within 180 days of entry of judgment or within
14

days

of

receiving

notice

from

the

court,

whichever

is

earlier; and (3) no party would be prejudiced.
In
receive

his

notice

notice

of

of
the

appeal,
district

Krug

stated

court’s

that

order

he

did

not

dismissing

his

action until the court mailed him a copy on May 6, 2015, in
response to Krug’s April 30 letter of inquiry as to the status
of his case.
permitting

Accordingly, we remand for the limited purpose of

the

district

court

to

determine

whether

Krug’s

notice of appeal should be construed as a motion to reopen the
appeal period, and if so, whether reopening is merited.

The

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

REMANDED

3