Jackson v. Smith

Filing 920060626

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6308

JERRY JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. V. SMITH, Warden; J. SERRANO, MD; L. ROGERS, I.C.C.I.D.P.; K. WALKER, PA; A. SAHA, PA; H. WATTS, Board of Appeals; JOHN L. LAMANNA, Warden; LOUISA FUERTES-ROSARIO; FNU SERO, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (6:04-cv-02190-GRA) Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Jerry district Jackson, order a federal inmate, appeals from of the the

court's

adopting

the

recommendation

magistrate judge and denying relief in Jackson's Bivens1 action. Although we express no opinion regarding the merits of Jackson's suit, we remand for further proceedings. The magistrate judge's recommendation was entered on January 10, 2006. Within the time period for filing objections,

Jackson filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file objections. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Jackson's motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); see Carefirst of

Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that this court reviews for abuse of discretion a district court's denial of Rule 6(b) motion for extension of time). Timely objections were due by January 30.2 The district

court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on February 2. On

February 6, Jackson submitted undated objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, bearing a certificate of service of January 27, and postmarked January 31. The district court

denied the objections, finding that they were untimely and moot. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2 1

Agents

of

Fed.

Bureau

of

In its order denying Jackson's motion for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court erroneously stated that the objections were due on January 27. - 2 -

Under

Houston

v.

Lack,

487

U.S.

266,

276

(1988),

Jackson's objections were deemed filed when they were handed to prison officials for mailing. It is unclear from the record

whether Jackson's objections were filed prior to the expiration of the objection period. Accordingly, we remand for a determination of the date Jackson filed his objections. The case will then be returned to

this court for further proceedings. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED

- 3 -