UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6604
JOHN E. HARGROVE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JACOB FULLER; NURSE ERIN; NURSE JESSICA; DR. JOE; KING, C/O;
DR. EDWARDS; DR. JAMES; MILLER, C/O,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
PRIME CARE MEDICAL INCORPORATED; EASTERN REGIONAL JAIL;
CHAD; RUDLOFF,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00132-IMK-JSK)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: January 24, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. John Dorsey Hoffman,
FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia;
Philip Cameron Petty, ROSE PADDEN & PETTY, LC, Fairmont, West
Virginia; Chad Marlo Cardinal, WV REGIONAL JAIL & CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY AUTHORITY, Charleston, West Virginia; Frederick W.
Goundry, III, VARNER & GOUNDRY, Frederick, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John E. Hargrove sued several state officials pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). He seeks to appeal the district
court’s February 10, 2010 judgment in favor of defendants.
Thus, absent an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
Hargrove had until March 12, 2010, in which to file a notice of
appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
The district court filed Hargrove’s notice of appeal
on April 20, 2010. Because Hargrove is a prisoner, the 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, 276
(1988) (holding that pro se prisoners’ notices of appeal are
deemed filed upon delivery to prison authorities for forwarding
to the district court). On this record, however, it is unclear
when Hargrove delivered his notice of appeal to prison officials
for mailing. While the possibility that Hargrove timely
delivered his notice of appeal to prison officials on or before
March 12, 2010, and that it took those officials until
April 20, 2010, to deliver it to the district court appears
remote, it is nevertheless a possibility.
Accordingly, we remand this matter for the limited
purpose of allowing the district court to obtain from the
parties information regarding when Hargrove provided his notice
3
of appeal to prison officials for mailing and to determine
whether the filing was timely under Rule 4(c)(1) and Houston v.
Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to
this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
4