Allan Petersen v. Brian Price
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALLAN A. PETERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRIAN PRICE; MICHELLE SPEARS; MCCLINTOCK; MAVIS HOLYFIELD, DOMINIC GUTIERREZ; SUSAN
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00106-FPS-JSK)
April 16, 2009
May 15, 2009
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allan A. Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Betsy C. Jividen, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Allan A. Peterson seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing his complaint. The notice of appeal was received
in the district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Because Peterson is incarcerated, the notice is
considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Fed. R. App. P. The record does
not reveal when Peterson gave the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. We previously remanded this case to the
district court for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the parties and to
determine whether the filing was timely. When the parties did not respond with the requested information by the deadline established by the district court, the court found that Peterson had failed to satisfy his burden of proof as to the issue of timeliness. Peterson subsequently
filed a notice to this court and the district court that he did not receive the district court's order directing him to file a pleading addressing the timeliness of his appeal, and providing the requested information. Peterson's notice. The district court has not addressed
Accordingly, we again remand the case for
the limited purpose of allowing the district court to consider 2
Peterson's notice and determine whether the notice of appeal 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
By this disposition, we indicate no view as to whether Peterson's notice of appeal was timely, leaving that determination to be made in the first instance by the district court.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?