Martin Rugamba v. Rockledge Bus (Tour), Inc.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-03948-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000130641]. Mailed to: Martin Rugamba. [16-2391]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2391 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2391 MARTIN RUGAMBA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR), INC.; ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR) INC. SUPERVISOR; MTA POLICE OFFICER 1; MTA POLICE OFFICER 2; MTA BUS DRIVER; MTA TRAIN OPERATOR; AMTRAK 3 UNKNOWN AGENTS; 7-ELEVEN; 7-ELEVEN, INC. 2 Unknown Employees; DOES 1-20, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03948-GLR) Submitted: July 27, 2017 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Rugamba, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: August 3, 2017 Appeal: 16-2391 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Martin Rugamba appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his case and file an amended complaint. We dismissed Rugamba’s prior appeal for lack of jurisdiction “[b]ecause the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint.” Rugamba v. Rockledge Bus (Tour), Inc., 667 F. App’x 61, 61 (4th Cir. 2016) (No. 16-1076) (emphasis added). Because the district court did not permit Rugamba to file an amended complaint, we vacate the district court’s order denying the motion to reopen and remand with instructions to permit Rugamba to do so. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 2

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?