Case ID: f-appx_63/html/0714-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wayne Ralph MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Scott C. VACHRIS, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; Mishelene N. Minot, Commonwealth Witness; Page True, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-7802.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 29, 2003.
    Decided May 16, 2003.
    Wayne Ralph Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Wayne Ralph Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (2000), and dismissing it without prejudice. After the district court dismissed Marshall’s petition for failure to supply the court with requested information, Marshall filed a letter on November 13, 2002, tending to show that he had responded to the court’s request. On November 19, 2002, Marshall filed a timely notice of appeal. The district court considered Marshall’s letter as a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and issued an order on December 16, 2002, indicating its inclination to grant Marshall’s post-judgment motion. See Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir.1999). Accordingly, we remand for the limited purpose of consideration on the merits Marshall’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See id. at 892. In so doing, we express no opinion on the merits of the motion. See id. 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.