Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01771/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01771-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1771

CYNTHIA ROSEBERRY-ANDREWS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC., d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods, Inc.; 

DIAMOND PET FOODS, INC.,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-01503-GJH)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Mark J. Strong, 

LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN P. STEBENNE, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1771 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia Roseberry-Andrews seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing her complaint without prejudice.

Parties are accorded 30 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 district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 

2, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on July 1, 2016. On 

September 19, 2016, the Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the 

appeal. On September 26, 2016, Roseberry-Andrews filed a motion 

in the district court to enlarge the appeal period. Because 

that motion remains pending, we remand this case to the district 

court for the limited purpose of deciding the motion. 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

REMANDED

Appeal: 16-1771 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 2