Michael Osei v. University of MD Univ. College, No. 16-2074 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 6, 2018.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2074 MICHAEL OSEI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (“UMUC”); THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AID, UMUC; JAVIER MIYARES; JULIE LINDENMEIER; CLAIRBOURNE W. PATTY; TERRENCE COOPER; LYNETTE O’LEARY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-02502-DKC) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: March 3, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Osei, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Bowie Lord, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Osei seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint against the University of Maryland University College and certain employees of the university. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Fed. R. App. However, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves for an extension of the appeal period within 30 days after the expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989). “[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 entered its order on August 15, 2016. September 15, 2016, Osei simultaneously reconsideration and a notice of appeal. appeal was one day late, we filed a motion On for Although the notice of construe Osei’s motion for reconsideration as a motion for an extension of the appeal period. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Osei has demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 30- 2 day appeal period. 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.
