"pleadings should not be scrutinized with such technical nicety that a meritorious claim should be defeated"
How later courts described this case
- "pleadings should not be scrutinized with such technical nicety that a meritorious claim should be defeated"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DEMARCUS M. BROWN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6476
KENNETH L. OSBORNE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-99-189-7)
Submitted: July 13, 1999
Decided: August 11, 1999
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
DeMarcus M. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant DeMarcus Brown seeks to appeal the district court's
order summarily dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999) as time-barred. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion and remand.
Brown, a pro se litigant, asserts for the first time on appeal that
"good cause" prevented him from timely filing his petition. The dis-
trict court summarily dismissed Brown's § 2254 petition without
affording Brown an opportunity to present this argument. Liberally
construing Brown's notice of appeal and informal brief as a Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion, we remand the case to the district court to deter-
mine whether "good cause" prevented Brown from timely filing his
§ 2254 petition. See Noble v. Barnett, 24 F.3d 582, 587 n.6 (4th Cir.
1994); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978)
("pleadings should not be scrutinized with such technical nicety that
a meritorious claim should be defeated").
Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability and remand the
case to the district court for decision on Brown's Rule 60(b) motion.
We also deny Brown's request that "copies be made of the Appel-
lant's, Appellant Brief, and mailed to the opposing party and their
counsel." 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.
REMANDED
2