Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-05-06145/USCOURTS-ca4-05-06145-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deputy Batch
Appellee
Bird
Appellee
Jay Mikal Brooks
Appellant
Fitzgerald
Appellee

Document Text:

Document 1

Document 2

Appeal: 05-6145 Doc: 39 Filed: 12/13/2005 Pg: 1 of 4
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

 December 13, 2005

 Elizabeth H. Paret

 U. S. DISTRICT COURT

 Room 193

 Walter E. Hoffman Courthouse

 600 Granby Street

 Norfolk, VA 23510

 Re: 05-6145 Brooks v. Bird

 CA-04-593

 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/ Alecia F. Dohnal

 By: ________________________

 Deputy Clerk

 cc: Jay Mikal Brooks

Appeal: 05-6145 Doc: 39 Filed: 12/13/2005 Pg: 2 of 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6145 

JAY MIKAL BROOKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BIRD, Deputy; FITZGERALD, Sargeant; DEPUTY

BATCH, Classification Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-04-593)

Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 13, 2005

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay Mikal Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Appeal: 05-6145 Doc: 39 Filed: 12/13/2005 Pg: 3 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jay Mikal Brooks appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for

failing to apprise the district court of a new address. This court

remanded for a determination of whether the district court would

extend the time for filing Brooks’s notice of appeal pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The district court found good cause for

an extension of time. The court also noted that, pursuant to our

decision in Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th

Cir. 1999), it would be inclined to grant a motion to reopen the

action. Brooks has now filed a motion to reopen in the district

court and a motion to remand in this court. We grant the motion,

and remand for the limited purpose of consideration of the merits

of Brooks’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. See Fobian, 164 F.3d at

892. We express no opinion of the merits of the motion. 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

Appeal: 05-6145 Doc: 39 Filed: 12/13/2005 Pg: 4 of 4