Stacy Howard v. Jon Ozmint

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND filed by DGM, PVN and RBK [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 6:08-cv-03171-GRA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998453767] [10-6106]

Stacy Howard v. Jon Ozmint

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6106 Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/27/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6106 STACY W. HOWARD, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. DIRECTOR JON E. OZMINT, of S.C. Department of Corrections also known as John E. Ozmint; WARDEN WILLIE EAGLETON; AARON JOYNER, Major; CAPTAIN KENNETH GREEN; S. SKIPPER, IGC of the Evans Correctional Institution; T. WOOLBRIGHT; S. MOSES; C. FOX; T. SIMMONS; MICHAEL J. STOBBE, Inmate Records; JIMMY EDGE, officer; DAVID BRAYBOY, officer, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cv-03171-GRA) Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: October 27, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacy W. Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Leigh Powers Boan, William Walter Doar, Jr., MCNAIR LAW FIRM, PA, Pawleys Island, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6106 Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/27/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Stacy W. Howard seeks to appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants. appeal was received of the in the district period. court The notice of shortly after is

expiration

appeal

Because

Howard

incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. (1988). of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 The record does not reveal when Howard gave the notice to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we

appeal

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

2