Nathaniel Caldwell, III v. Roberto Robert
OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-04277-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court. Mailed to: Nathaniel Caldwell, III.  [17-6271]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NATHANIEL CALDWELL, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
WARDEN ROBERTO ROBERTS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:14-cv-04277-RMG)
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: October 30, 2017
Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Caldwell, III, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Nathaniel Caldwell, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation in part, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We order a limited remand.
Parties are accorded 30 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). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). An inmate’s notice of appeal
is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing
to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
The district court’s order denying Caldwell’s motion for reconsideration was dated
October 14, 2016 and entered on October 17, 2016. On February 21, 2017, this court
received a letter from Caldwell claiming that he had timely filed his notice of appeal on
November 7, 2016 by giving it to prison authorities for mailing on that date. He also
provided some evidence in support of the assertion. However, that notice of appeal does
not appear in the district court’s docket. Because the letter evidenced an intent to appeal,
we construed it as a notice of appeal and forwarded it to the district court for filing.
We now remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of
determining whether Caldwell filed a timely notice of appeal under Rule 4(c)(1). The
record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
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?