Case ID: f-appx_531/html/0388-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Keyon RIDDICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HERLOCK, Mr. Director of Security; Jo Hong, Correctional Officer; Faux, Mr. Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and Chan, Correctional Officer; Justice, Correctional Officer; Wittaker, Correctional Officer/Sergeant; Ray, Correctional Officer; Mails, Correctional Officer/Sergeant, Defendants.
    No. 13-6194.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 12, 2013.
    Decided: July 3, 2013.
    Keyon Riddick, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, Lee Brinson Warren, Cook Craig & Francuzenko, PLLC, Fair-fax, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keyon Riddick appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with an order directing that he file an affidavit as to his exhaustion of administrative remedies. On appeal, Riddick alleges that he placed his responsive affidavit in the prison mailing system on December 25, 2013. We note that Riddick filed a letter with the district court stating that he had filed additional “attachments” to his amended complaint on December 27, 2013. If, as Riddick intimates on appeal, these attachments included his exhaustion affidavit, his papers would have been deemed timely filed pursuant to the prison mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Therefore, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to make a factual determination as to whether Rid-dick timely placed his exhaustion affidavit in the prison mailing system. The record as supplemented by the district court’s findings will then be returned to this court for further review.

VACATED AND REMANDED.