Case Name: Martin RUGAMBA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR), INC.; Rockledge Bus (Tour) Inc. Supervisor; MTA Police Officer 1; MTA Police Officer 2; MTA Bus Driver; MTA Train Operator; Amtrak 3 Unknown Agents; 7-Eleven; 7-Eleven, Inc. 2 Unknown Employees; Does 1-20, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-03
Citations: 694 F. App'x 191
Docket Number: No. 16-2391
Parties: Martin RUGAMBA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR), INC.; Rockledge Bus (Tour) Inc. Supervisor; MTA Police Officer 1; MTA Police Officer 2; MTA Bus Driver; MTA Train Operator; Amtrak 3 Unknown Agents; 7-Eleven; 7-Eleven, Inc. 2 Unknown Employees; Does 1-20, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
Martin RUGAMBA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR), INC.; Rockledge Bus (Tour) Inc. Supervisor; MTA Police Officer 1; MTA Police Officer 2; MTA Bus Driver; MTA Train Operator; Amtrak 3 Unknown Agents; 7-Eleven; 7-Eleven, Inc. 2 Unknown Employees; Does 1-20, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-2391
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 27, 2017
Decided: August 3, 2017
Martin Rugamba, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martin Rugamba appeals the district court's order denying his motion to reopen his case and file an amended complaint. We dismissed Rugamba's prior appeal for lack of jurisdiction "[bjecause the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended, complaint." Rugamba v. Rockledge Bus (Tour), Inc., 667 Fed.Appx. 61, 61 (4th Cir. 2016) (No. 16-1076) (emphasis added). Because the district court did not permit Rugamba to file an amended complaint, we vacate the district court's order denying the motion to reopen and remand with instructions to permit Rugamba to do so. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED