Willie F. Parson, Iii v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 1988 , the earliest date his notice of appeal may be deemed filed…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6732
WILLIE F. PARSON, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CECIL LLOYD, A. J. TOMLINSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:05-cv-01212-LMB)
Submitted: September 22, 2006 Decided: October 24, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie F. Parson, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Willie F. Parson, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000) for failure to state a claim. The
district court’s final order was entered on the docket on
February 14, 2006. Parson’s notice of appeal was not received by
the district court until April 17, 2006. According Parson the
benefit of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988), the earliest date his notice of appeal may be deemed filed
is April 11, 2006.
Although Parson’s notice of appeal was filed beyond the
30-day window for filing a timely notice of appeal, the cover
letter Parson enclosed with his notice states that he was unable to
comply with the 30-day deadline because he did not receive the
court’s final order until April 10, 2006. This letter, which was
submitted both within thirty days of the expiration of the appeal
period and within seven days of the date Parson asserts he received
notice of the district court’s entry of a final order, may be
properly construed as either a motion for an extension of time in
which to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or as a
motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6).
Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for
the limited purpose of determining whether Parson can satisfy the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
requirements for either an extension of time or a reopening of the
appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned
to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --