Lester Fletcher v. Ashton Carter

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-03897-PX Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Jane Anderson and Lester Fletcher. [1000185307] [17-1732]

Appeal: 17-1732

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1732

MR. LESTER D. FLETCHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ASHTON BALDWIN CARTER; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DEFENSE
COMMISSARY AGENCY DeCA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03897-PX)

Submitted: October 24, 2017

Decided: November 2, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester D. Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Elizabeth Anderson, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1732

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lester D. Fletcher appeals the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his
complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2017); the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2017); the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2012); and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2012 & Supp.
2017). Seven days after the district court issued its memorandum opinion dismissing the
complaint, Fletcher filed a “response,” arguing that he was entitled to equitable tolling.
The district court returned the pleading without consideration, explaining that the case
was now closed. “[I]f a post-judgment motion is filed within ten days of the entry of
judgment and calls into question the correctness of that judgment it should be treated as a
motion under Rule 59(e), however it may be formally styled.” MLC Auto., LLC v. Town
of So. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008). Thus, Fletcher’s postjudgment motion is
properly construed as a timely-filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
Accordingly, we order a limited remand directing the district court to promptly
docket Fletcher’s response as a Rule 59(e) motion and to consider the motion on its
merits. If either party is dissatisfied after the district court disposes of the Rule 59(e)
motion and timely files a notice of appeal or amends its current notice, Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(B)(ii), any appeal from the district court’s final order will be consolidated with
this appeal.

Regardless of the outcome of the Rule 59(e) motion, the record, as

supplemented, will be returned to this court for further consideration.
2

Appeal: 17-1732

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/02/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

In ordering this limited remand, we express no opinion as to the merits of the
motion. 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.
REMANDED

3