Marion Sherrod v. Lawrence Parson

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Motion disposition in opinion--remanding case for limited purpose [4cca retains jurisdiction] Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00068-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: M. Sherrod. [999896958] [15-7990]

Appeal: 15-7990

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7990

MARION LAMONT SHERROD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LAWRENCE PARSONS; JEFFREY WALL;
GOODWIN, Correctional Officer,

KIERNAN

SHANAHAN;

K.

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00068-FDW)

Submitted:

May 31, 2016

Decided:

July 26, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Lamont Sherrod, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7990

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marion Lamont Sherrod seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders,

filed

42 U.S.C.

§

reconsider.
well

on

June

1983

1

(2012)

and

June

action

22,

and

2015,

dismissing

denying

his

motion

his
to

Although the docketed notice of appeal was received

outside

the

expiration

of

the

appeal

period,

Sherrod

indicates that he previously delivered his notice of appeal to
prison
period.

officials
Fed.

on
R.

July
App.

12,
P.

2015,

within

4(a)(1)(A).

the

30-day

Because

appeal

Sherrod

is

incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it
was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court.
(1988).

Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
The record does not conclusively reveal when Sherrod

delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing.
Accordingly,

we

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