Charles Thomas v. South Carolina Department

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND filed by BMK, DWS and AD [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 0:14-cv-00302-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Thomas. [999517803] [14-7551]

Appeal: 14-7551

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7551

CHARLES EDWARD THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Former
Prison Director; MEDICAL DIVISION; FINANCIAL RECORDS, In
their individual and official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:14-cv-00302-DCN)

Submitted:

January 22, 2015

Decided:

January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7551

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles

Edward

Thomas

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss, after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, his complaint
alleging

Defendants

state law rights.

violated

his

constitutional,

federal

and

Parties are accorded thirty days after the

entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or
reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
timely

filing

of

a

notice

of

jurisdictional requirement.”

appeal

in

a

civil

case

“[T]he
is

a

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

214 (2007).
The

district

court

entered

Thomas’s action on May 28, 2014.

its

judgment

dismissing

However, Thomas did not file

what was construed as a notice of appeal until October 19, 2014, *
in which he inquires about the status of his objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
suggests

that

he

did

not

receive

the

district

Because Thomas
court’s

order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and since his
*

For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on Thomas’s filing is the earliest date it could have
been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

2

Appeal: 14-7551

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

inquiry into the status of his objections to that recommendation
was made within 180 days of the entry of the district court’s
entry adopting the recommendation, we construe Thomas’s October
19, 2014 filing as a motion to reopen the time to appeal under
Rule 4(a)(6).

See United States v. Feuver, 236 F.3d 725, 729

n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we remand the case to the

district court for the court to determine whether Thomas can
satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6).
Cnty.,

32

F.3d

452,

454

(10th

Cir.

See Ogden v. San Juan

1994).

The

record,

as

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

REMANDED

3