Douglas Roseby v. Paul Budlow, No. 10-6937 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 3, 2011.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6937 MR. DOUGLAS M. ROSEBY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MR. PAUL E. BUDLOW, et al., Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-00417-AW) Submitted: October 7, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Roseby, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas M. Roseby seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) complaint and has moved to place his appeal in abeyance. The order he seeks to challenge was entered by the district court on March 9, 2010. Roseby filed his notice of June 28, 2010, on July 2, 2010. appeal, which was dated Even giving Roseby the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), his notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). In his notice, however, Roseby indicated that he was unaware of the district court s dismissal order until June 21, 2010. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time to file an appeal if: (1) the moving party did not receive notice of entry of judgment within twenty-one days after entry; (2) a motion to reopen the appeal period is filed within 180 days of entry of judgment or within fourteen days of receiving notice from the district court, whichever is earlier; and (3) no party would be prejudiced. We remand to the district court so it may determine whether Roseby is entitled to have his time to file an appeal reopened under Rule 4(a)(6). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. We also deny as moot Roseby s motion to place his appeal in abeyance. REMANDED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.