Case ID: f-appx_131/html/0915-01.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

David M. GORDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
    No. 04-7867.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 27, 2005.
    Decided: May 17, 2005.
    David M. Gordon, Appellant pro se.
    Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    
      Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 which to file objections commences upon service of report and recommendation); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (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