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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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,

(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,

, 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