Testo completo
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-6396
N’NEKA HENDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
W. TOWNSEND; RODNEY JACOBS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:25-cv-00716-RDA-LRV)
Submitted: August 13, 2026 Decided: August 21, 2026
Before NIEMEYER, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
N’Neka Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
N’Neka Henderson, a Virginia inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, then
moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). As part of her IFP application, Henderson
signed a consent form agreeing to maintain a certain minimum balance in her inmate trust
account and to authorize her correctional institution to withdraw money from her account
in order to satisfy the court filing fee. Henderson failed to comply with the terms of the
consent form, so the district court ordered her to show cause why her complaint should not
be dismissed. In response, Henderson represented that she had now paid the filing fee in
full. Seeing no evidence of any such payment, the court dismissed the action.
Henderson appealed, then sent the district court a letter—docketed as a Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) motion—with proof that she had in fact paid the full filing fee. The court issued
an indicative ruling under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1, explaining that it presently lacked
jurisdiction over the Rule 60(b) motion but that it would be inclined to grant the motion
were this court to remand the matter.
We find that a remand is warranted. See Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d
887, 890-91 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we remand to the district court for the limited
purpose of ruling on Henderson’s Rule 60(b) motion. The record, as supplemented, will
then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
-- 2 of 2 --