Martin Rugamba v. Rockledge Bus, No. 16-2391 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2391 MARTIN RUGAMBA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR), INC.; ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR)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 Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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

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.