Case Name: Robert Lee WALSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; District Court, Clerk of Charleston Division; Mildred L. Rivera, Warden FCI Estill, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-10
Citations: 453 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 11-6304
Parties: Robert Lee WALSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; District Court, Clerk of Charleston Division; Mildred L. Rivera, Warden FCI Estill, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
Robert Lee WALSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; District Court, Clerk of Charleston Division; Mildred L. Rivera, Warden FCI Estill, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 11-6304.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 10, 2011.
Robert Lee Walsh, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Walsh seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We previously remanded to the district court with instructions for the district court to determine whether Walsh can satisfy the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). Because the district court's docket revealed that the court served notice of its order denying Walsh § 2241 relief on October 28, 2010, 2010 WL 4365546, and the mail was not returned to the district court, the district court found that Walsh could not satisfy the conditions of Rule 4(a)(6)(A). Accordingly, the district court denied the motion to reopen the appeal period.
Because Walsh's filings with this court suggest that he did not receive notice of the district court's dismissal order within at least the first month after it was entered on the district court's docket, we again remand the matter to the district court for a determination as to whether Walsh is entitled to a reopening of the appeal period. On remand, the district court shall afford the parties an opportunity to submit additional information to assist it in determining whether Walsh is entitled to have the appeal period reopened. The record, as supplemented, shall then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED.
By this disposition, we intimate no view as to whether Walsh is entitled to a reopening of the appeal period.