Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06732/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06732-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cecil Lloyd
Appellee
Willie F. Parson III
Appellant
A. J. Tomlinson
Appellee

Document Text:

Document 1

Document 2

Appeal: 06-6732 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2006 Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex

1100 E. Main Street, Suite 501

Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517

Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

www.ca4.uscourts.gov Telephone

(804) 916-2700

 October 24, 2006

 Fernando Galindo

 Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria

 401 Courthouse Square

 Alexandria, VA 22314

 Re: 06-6732 Parson v. Lloyd

 1:05-cv-01212-LMB

 Dear Clerk:

 Enclosed is an opinion of this Court remanding the case for

 limited purpose. The record on appeal is being returned for the

 district court's use. Please return the record, as supplemented,

 to this Court after completing the determination on remand.

 Yours truly,

 PATRICIA S. CONNOR

 Clerk

 /s/ Lisa Jernigan

 By: ________________________

 Deputy Clerk

 cc: Willie F. Parson III

Appeal: 06-6732 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2006 Pg: 2 of 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6732

WILLIE F. PARSON, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CECIL LLOYD, A. J. TOMLINSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:05-cv-01212-LMB)

Submitted: September 22, 2006 Decided: October 24, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie F. Parson, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Appeal: 06-6732 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2006 Pg: 3 of 5
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Willie F. Parson, III, seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000) for failure to state a claim. The

district court’s final order was entered on the docket on

February 14, 2006. Parson’s notice of appeal was not received by

the district court until April 17, 2006. According Parson the

benefit of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

(1988), the earliest date his notice of appeal may be deemed filed

is April 11, 2006.

Although Parson’s notice of appeal was filed beyond the

30-day window for filing a timely notice of appeal, the cover

letter Parson enclosed with his notice states that he was unable to

comply with the 30-day deadline because he did not receive the

court’s final order until April 10, 2006. This letter, which was

submitted both within thirty days of the expiration of the appeal

period and within seven days of the date Parson asserts he received

notice of the district court’s entry of a final order, may be

properly construed as either a motion for an extension of time in

which to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or as a

motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(6). 

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for

the limited purpose of determining whether Parson can satisfy the

Appeal: 06-6732 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2006 Pg: 4 of 5
- 3 -

requirements for either an extension of time or a reopening of the

appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned

to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED

Appeal: 06-6732 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2006 Pg: 5 of 5