Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., No. 16-1771 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 14, 2017.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1771 CYNTHIA ROSEBERRY-ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC., DIAMOND PET FOODS, INC., d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods, Inc.; Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-01503-GJH) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Mark J. Strong, LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN P. STEBENNE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cynthia court’s Roseberry-Andrews order dismissing seeks her to appeal complaint the without district prejudice. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 2, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on July 1, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. On September 26, 2016, Roseberry-Andrews filed a motion in the district court to enlarge the appeal period. Because that motion remains pending, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of deciding the motion. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. 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 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.