Michael Osei v. University of MD Univ College

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-02502-DKC. Copies to all parties and the district court. Mailed to: Appellant. [1000034803] [16-2074]

Appeal: 16-2074

Doc: 33

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2074

MICHAEL OSEI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (“UMUC”); THE OFFICE
OF FINANCIAL AID, UMUC; JAVIER MIYARES; JULIE LINDENMEIER;
CLAIRBOURNE W. PATTY; TERRENCE COOPER; LYNETTE O’LEARY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:15-cv-02502-DKC)

Submitted:

February 16, 2017

Decided:

March 3, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Osei, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Bowie Lord, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2074

Doc: 33

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Osei seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his civil complaint against the University of Maryland
University

College

and

certain

employees

of

the

university.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal.
P. 4(a)(1)(A).

Fed. R. App.

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 after the expiration of the original
appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause to
warrant an extension.

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

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

“[T]he timely

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.”

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

The district court entered its order on August 15, 2016.
September

15,

2016,

Osei

simultaneously

reconsideration and a notice of appeal.
appeal

was

one

day

late,

we

filed

a

motion

On
for

Although the notice of

construe

Osei’s

motion

for

reconsideration as a motion for an extension of the appeal period.
Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for
the limited purpose of determining whether Osei has demonstrated
excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 30-

2

Appeal: 16-2074

Doc: 33

day appeal period.

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

The record, as supplemented, will then be

returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED

3