Court Opinion

ID: 9945477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:01:12.498183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:30.513140
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2315      Doc: 14         Filed: 02/26/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2315

        BRUCE T. ADKINS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-01810-CCB)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                 Decided: February 26, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Bruce T. Adkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Patrick Redmond, BALTIMORE CITY LAW
        DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2315       Doc: 14          Filed: 02/26/2024       Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Bruce T. Adkins appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his due process and

        state law claims against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and denying his motion

        to vacate. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant. Adkins v.

        Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, No. 1:21-cv-01810-CCB (D. Md. filed Aug. 31,

        2022 & entered Sept. 1, 2022).

               The district court retained jurisdiction to rule on Adkins’ motion to vacate, filed

        within 28 days of judgment and construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, see MLC

        Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (construing motion

        seeking reconsideration as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion if filed within 28 days of district

        court’s final order), even though Adkins’ appeal was pending. See Wolfe v. Clarke, 718

        F.3d 277, 281 n.3 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that, although “a duly filed notice of appeal

        deprives a district court of jurisdiction over all issues relating to the subject matter thereof,”

        the court may “proceed as to matters in aid of the appeal” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)). However, because Adkins did not file an amended notice of appeal following

        the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate, he failed to perfect an appeal as to

        that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). We therefore dismiss the appeal as that order

        to the extent that Adkins intended to appeal it.

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2315         Doc: 14    Filed: 02/26/2024   Pg: 3 of 3

              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.

                                                                          AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                          DISMISSED IN PART

                                                  3