916 F.2d 710
Can John M. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
BOARD OF EDUCATION, in its official capacity as Board of
Advisors for Summers County Schools, Tassos, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of Summers County Schools,
Crawder, in her official capacity as Principal of Hinton
High School and Junior High, Joseph Arcremanne, in his
official capacity as Prosecutor of Summers County, James M.
Irwin, in his official capacity as Attendance Director for
Summers County Schools, Ricky Brown, a citizen of Summers
County, Hinton, West Virginia, Michael D. Miller, in his
official capacity as Disciplinary Officer and Assistant
Principal of Hinton High School, John Lilly, in his official
capacity as President of the Summers County Board of
Education, Summers County Commission, in its capacity as the
highest governing body of Summers County, Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 1, 1990.
Decided Oct. 24, 1990.
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden, II, Chief District Judge. (CA-90-465-5)
Can John M. Crawford, appellant pro se.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Before DONALD RUSSELL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Can (John) M. Crawford attempts to appeal the district court's dismissal, without prejudice, of his civil rights suit. Crawford's notice of appeal was untimely. However, Crawford and his father each filed a motion for an extension of the appeal period within thirty days of the expiration of the original appeal period. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5). The district court denied the motion for an extension because it was not filed by the actual pro se litigant. Crawford v. Board of Education, CA-90-465-5 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 29, 1990). From its order, it is not clear whether the district court considered the motion filed by Crawford's father and failed to consider the motion filed by Crawford.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order denying the motion for an extension of the appeal period and remand this issue so that the district court may consider Crawford's motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED.