Lisa Richardson-Henderson v. Showcase Home Improvements, Inc.

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1077

LISA RICHARDSON HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHOWCASE HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC., d/b/a Kenneth Ferber; U. S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for Pad Series IV Trust,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Adam B. Abelson, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00695-ABA)

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026

Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa Richardson Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Lisa Richardson Henderson appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reopen, in which she sought to file a second amended complaint following the district court’s dismissal of her amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 1 Because Richardson Henderson filed the motion to reopen more than 28 days after entry of the dismissal order, it is properly considered a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. 2 See In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir. 1992). When “a plaintiff seeks to reopen a case under Rule 60(b) in order to file an amended complaint, she must satisfy one of the Rule 60(b) grounds before a court may consider her motion to amend.” Daulatzai, 97 F.4th at 178 (emphasis omitted). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying this motion. See Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Richardson-Henderson v. Showcase Home Improvements, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00695-ABA (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2025). 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

1

Richardson Henderson has also filed a motion for clarification, abeyance, and a limited remand, relating to the district court’s refusal to docket a motion to reconsider the denial of her motion to reopen. We deny this motion.

2

For this reason, the district court’s order dismissing the amended complaint is not before us in this appeal. See Daulatzai v. Maryland, 97 F.4th 166, 178 (4th Cir. 2024); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).