Cason v. Maryland Division of Parole & Probation , 234 F. App'x 115 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7220
MARC S. CASON, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARYLAND DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:06-cv-01186-CCB)
Submitted: February 7, 2007 Decided: July 19, 2007
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc S. Cason, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marc S. Cason, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as barred by
the statute of limitations. We remand to the district court for
the reasons below.
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). A district court may extend the time to
appeal upon motion filed within thirty days after expiration of the
prescribed time, and a showing of excusable neglect or good cause.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). This appeal period is “mandatory and
jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,
264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229
(1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on its docket on
May 17, 2006. Cason filed his notice of appeal on July 11, 2006,
which was after the thirty-day appeal period expired but within the
thirty-day excusable neglect period.* Cason moved for an extension
of time to file the appeal, and the district court ordered Cason to
file a supplement to his notice of appeal to show good cause for
*
July 11, 2006, is the date the document construed as Cason’s
notice of appeal was filed by the district court. We cannot
determine when Cason submitted it to prison officials for mailing
because it was not dated and the envelope in which it was sent has
not been included as part of the district court’s record.
- 2 -
the untimely filing. Cason timely responded but the district court
has not ruled on the motion for extension.
Because the notice of appeal was filed within the
excusable neglect period and because the district court has not
ruled on the motion for an extension, we remand the case to the
district court for the limited purpose of permitting the court to
determine whether Cason has shown excusable neglect or good case
warranting an extension of the thirty-day appeal period. 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
REMANDED
- 3 -