UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7867
DAVID M. GORDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WANDA
OWENS, Investigator; STEVEN MARSHALL,
Investigator; T. CRAIG BAILEY, Captain; W. K.
WEBSTER, Sergeant; LIEUTENANT PARKER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-04-2401)
Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
South Carolina inmate David Michael Gordon filed this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action complaining about the seizure of
property and raising a variety of complaints about the conditions
of his confinement. On September 14, 2004, a magistrate judge
recommended dismissing the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
(2000). Gordon was warned that failure to file specific, written
objections to the report within ten days of service would waive
appellate review of the portions of the report to which no
objections were filed. No objections were filed as of October 6,
2004, and the district court adopted the recommendation and
dismissed the action.
On October 8, Gordon’s objections were filed in the
district court. The objections, which addressed the seizure of
property and the exposure of Gordon’s genitals to a crowd of
people, are not dated. The envelope in which the objections were
mailed was stamped as received for mailing at the prison postal
center on October 5. Gordon states that he received a copy of the
report on September 17 and placed the objections in a prison
mailbox for mailing on October 1.
If Gordon received a copy of the report on September 17
and gave his objections to prison officials for mailing on October
1, the objections would be deemed timely filed under the “prison
mailbox rule.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2000) (ten-day period in
- 2 -
which to file objections commences upon service of report and
recommendation); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)
(prisoner’s mail is deemed filed when prisoner delivers it to
prison officials for mailing); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (intermediate
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are excluded from time
computation when time period is less than eleven days).
We accordingly vacate the district court’s decision and
remand with instructions that the court make factual determinations
as to when Gordon was served with a copy of the report and
recommendation and when he delivered his specific written
objections to prison officials for mailing. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
The motions to compel all parties to undergo polygraph
testing and “to order a stay of sentencing or another form of
segregation from the life threatening conduct of the Department of
Corrections” are denied.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -