Case ID: f-appx_164/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jeffrey S. CRANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant DURANT, Kershaw Correctional Institution; Correctional Officer Cox, Kershaw Correctional Institution; Correctional Officer Pittman, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-6367.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 17, 2005.
    Decided Feb. 9, 2006.
    Jeffrey S. Crank, Appellant Pro Se. Ruskin C. Foster, L. Susan Foxworth, Matthew Penn Engen, McCutchen, Blanton, Johnson & Barnette, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey S. Crank appeals from the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Crank’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). Although we express no opinion regarding the merits of Crank’s suit, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

The magistrate judge’s recommendation was entered on December 29, 2004. On January 24, 2005, Crank filed a motion for extension of time in which to file objections. The motion was executed on January 10, stamped by prison officials on January 20, and postmarked January 21. The district court denied the motion as untimely filed and did not consider Crank’s subsequently filed objections.

Timely objections were due by January 19. Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), Crank’s motion for extension of time to object was deemed filed when he handed it to prison officials for mailing. It is unclear from the record whether Crank’s motion was filed prior to the expiration of the objection period.

Thus, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for a determination of the date Crank filed his motion to extend time. Should the district court determine that the motion was timely filed, it should reconsider its decision. Again, we express no opinion on the merits of either the motion to extend or the underlying suit. We grant Crank’s motion to amend and deny his motions for injunction and appointment of counsel. 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