John Hargrove v. Jacob Fuller

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND filed [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-00132-IMK-JSK. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: John Hargrove. [998714548] [10-6604]

Appeal: 10-6604

Document: 31

Date Filed: 11/02/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6604

JOHN E. HARGROVE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JACOB FULLER; NURSE ERIN; NURSE JESSICA; DR. JOE; KING, C/O;
DR. EDWARDS; DR. JAMES; MILLER, C/O,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PRIME CARE MEDICAL
CHAD; RUDLOFF,

INCORPORATED;

EASTERN

REGIONAL

JAIL;

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00132-IMK-JSK)

Submitted:

October 25, 2011

Decided:

November 2, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se.
John Dorsey Hoffman,
FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia;
Philip Cameron Petty, ROSE PADDEN & PETTY, LC, Fairmont, West
Virginia; Chad Marlo Cardinal, Charleston, West Virginia;

Appeal: 10-6604

Document: 31

Date Filed: 11/02/2011

Frederick W. Goundry,
Maryland, for Appellees.

III,

VARNER

Page: 2 of 3

&

GOUNDRY,

Frederick,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-6604

Document: 31

Date Filed: 11/02/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John E. Hargrove seeks to appeal the district court’s
February

10,

2010

order

dismissing

U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action.

without

prejudice

his

42

We remanded the case “for the

limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain from
the

parties

notice

of

information
appeal

to

regarding
prison

when

Hargrove

officials

for

provided

mailing

and

his
to

determine whether the filing was timely under [Fed. R. App. P.]
4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack.[ *]”

Hargrove v. Fuller, 408 F.

App’x 675, 675-76 (4th Cir. 2011).
the

parties

to

submit

evidence

The district court ordered

regarding

the

Hargrove’s notice of appeal; each party responded.

timeliness

of

The district

court then returned the supplemented record to us without making
a timeliness determination in accordance with our prior opinion.
Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court
for

the

limited

purpose

of

allowing

the

district

court

determine whether Hargrove’s notice of appeal was timely.

to
The

record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for
further consideration.
REMANDED

*

487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

3