Robert Lee Walsh v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6304
ROBERT LEE WALSH,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DISTRICT COURT, Clerk of
Charleston Division; MILDRED L. RIVERA, Warden FCI Estill,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(8:10-cv-00085-RMG)
Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: November 10, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Walsh, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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, 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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.

-- 3 of 3 --