Case Name: Jay Mikal BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BIRD, Deputy; Fitzgerald, Sargeant; Deputy Batch, Classification Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 158 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: No. 05-6145
Parties: Jay Mikal BROOKS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BIRD, Deputy; Fitzgerald, Sargeant; Deputy Batch, Classification Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 427–428

Head Matter:
Jay Mikal BROOKS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BIRD, Deputy; Fitzgerald, Sargeant; Deputy Batch, Classification Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-6145.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2005.
Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
Jay Mikal Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
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