Marlow Bates, Sr. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 11-2355 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 27, 2012.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2355 MARLOW L. BATES, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SONY CORP OF AMERICA; L G ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA INC.; PANASONIC ELECTRIC WORKS CORP. OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-03158-JFM) Submitted: April 23, 2012 Decided: April 27, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlow L. Bates, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Daniel P. Doty, Julie Rebecca Rubin, ASTRACHAN GUNST AND THOMAS PC, Baltimore, Maryland; David Ira Ackerman, SNR DENTON US LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marlow L. Bates, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court s order granting Samsung's motion to dismiss his civil action. We remand for consideration of whether reopening of the appeal period is merited. Parties are accorded thirty 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 timely filing of a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) extends the start of the appeal period until the entry of the district court s order adjudicating the Rule 59(e) motion. [T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on July 20, 2011. The order denying Bates s Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on August 18, 2011. Bates filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal on October 20, 2011, which the district court has not addressed. Bates filed a notice of appeal on December 7, 2011. Bates s notice of appeal is clearly untimely. However, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may 2 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) the motion is filed within 180 days of entry of judgment or within fourteen days of receiving notice from the court, whichever prejudiced. is earlier, and (3) no party would be In his motion for extension of time, Bates stated that he did not receive notice of the district court s denial of his Rule 59(e) motion until October 18, 2011. We accordingly remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to determine whether Bates s motion for an extension of time should be construed as a motion to reopen the appeal period, and if so, whether reopening is merited. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED 3
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.
