Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06308/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

Document 1

Document 2

Appeal: 06-6308 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/26/2006 Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex

1100 E. Main Street, Suite 501

Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517

Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

www.ca4.uscourts.gov Telephone

(804) 916-2700

 June 26, 2006

 Clerk, U. S. District Court

 U. S. DISTRICT COURT

 Federal Building

 300 East Washington Street

 Greenville, SC 29601

 Re: 06-6308 Jackson v. Smith

 6:04-cv-02190-GRA

 Dear Clerk:

 Enclosed is an opinion of this Court remanding the case for

 limited purpose. Please supplement the assembled electronic record

 after completing the determination on remand.

 Yours truly,

 PATRICIA S. CONNOR

 Clerk

 /s/ Sarah A. Carmichael

 By: ________________________

 Deputy Clerk

 cc: Jerry Jackson

 Barbara Murcier Bowens

Appeal: 06-6308 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/26/2006 Pg: 2 of 5
UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

Appeal: 06-6308 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/26/2006 Pg: 3 of 5
1Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2In 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 -

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.

Appeal: 06-6308 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/26/2006 Pg: 4 of 5
- 3 -

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

Appeal: 06-6308 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/26/2006 Pg: 5 of 5