Bilal Al-Haqq v. Oliver Washington , 642 F. App'x 283 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7522
BILAL A. AL-HAQQ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT OLIVER WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JOHN PATE, Warden; MAJOR WALTER WORRICK; AW RANDALL
WILLIAMS; LT RICHARD JENKINS; LT TYLER; CPL MARVIN BRYANT;
MS. EDITH WETHERBEE; MRS. VIRGINIA GRUBBS; MS. V. JONES,
official and individual capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(2:13-cv-02867-TMC)
Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bilal A. Al-Haqq, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Bass Lohr, James
Andrew Yoho, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Bilal A. Al-Haqq, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint. Parties in a civil action in which the
United States is not a party have 30 days following entry of
judgment in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a
civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
Because Al-Haqq is incarcerated, the notice of appeal is
considered filed on the date it was properly delivered to prison
officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1);
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The record does not
conclusively reveal when Al-Haqq delivered the notice of appeal
to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the
case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to
obtain this information from the parties and to determine
whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and
Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be
returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
3