Steven Lee Scharr v. Stephanie Hollembeak
OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999957454-2] Originating case number: 5:16-hc-02025-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Steven Lee Scharr FMC BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER P. O. Box 1600 Butner, NC 27509-0000.  [16-7433]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN LEE SCHARR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
Respondent – Appellee,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:16-hc-02025-BO)
January 31, 2017
February 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Lee Scharr, Appellant Pro Se.
BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
granting what it construed as Steven Lee Scharr’s Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41 motion to voluntarily dismiss Scharr’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2012) petition, as well as Scharr’s application to proceed in
After the district court dismissed the § 2241
petition, Scharr filed a letter on October 17, 2016, * explaining
that he did not want to dismiss his § 2241 petition (October
The district court construed the October
17th correspondence, which was filed only ten days after the
In light of Scharr’s assertion that he did not intend to
should have construed the October 17th correspondence as a Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978)
(holding, under a prior version of Rule 59(e), that “if a postjudgment
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that a
pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is considered filed when it
is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court).
Pg: 3 of 3
judgment it should be treated as a motion under Rule 59(e),
however it may be formally styled”).
Accordingly, we grant Scharr’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and order a limited remand directing the district
court to promptly docket Scharr’s October 17th correspondence as
a Rule 59(e) motion and to consider the motion on its merits.
disposes of the Rule 59(e) motion, any appeal from the district
Regardless of the outcome of the Rule 59(e) motion, the record,
In ordering this remand, we express no opinion as to the
merits of the Rule 59(e) motion.
We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
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?