UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6308
JERRY JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
J. V. SMITH, Warden; J. SERRANO, MD; L.
ROGERS, I.C.C.I.D.P.; K. WALKER, PA; A. SAHA,
PA; H. WATTS, Board of Appeals; JOHN L.
LAMANNA, Warden; LOUISA FUERTES-ROSARIO; FNU
SERO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:04-cv-02190-GRA)
Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Jackson, a federal inmate, appeals from the
district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief in Jackson’s Bivens1 action.
Although we express no opinion regarding the merits of Jackson’s
suit, we remand for further proceedings.
The magistrate judge’s recommendation was entered on
January 10, 2006. Within the time period for filing objections,
Jackson filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file
objections. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
denial of Jackson’s motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); see Carefirst of
Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396
(4th Cir. 2003) (holding that this court reviews for abuse of
discretion a district court’s denial of Rule 6(b) motion for
extension of time).
Timely objections were due by January 30.2 The district
court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted
summary judgment in favor of Defendants on February 2. On
February 6, Jackson submitted undated objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, bearing a certificate of service
of January 27, and postmarked January 31. The district court
denied the objections, finding that they were untimely and moot.
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
In its order denying Jackson’s motion for an extension of
time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the district court erroneously stated that the
objections were due on January 27.
- 2 -
Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988),
Jackson’s objections were deemed filed when they were handed to
prison officials for mailing. It is unclear from the record
whether Jackson’s objections were filed prior to the expiration of
the objection period.
Accordingly, we remand for a determination of the date
Jackson filed his objections. The case will then be returned to
this court for further proceedings. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -