Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07626/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07626-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Keith Nesbitt
Appellant
State of South Carolina

Warden Tyger River Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7626

BRIAN KEITH NESBITT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard M. Gergel, District 

Judge. (0:13-cv-02602-RMG)

Submitted: March 16, 2015 Decided: April 1, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Keith Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Appeal: 14-7626 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7626 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Brian Keith Nesbitt, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to 

appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition. Parties in a civil action in which the 

United States is not a party have thirty days following entry of 

the judgment in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(1)(A). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a 

civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Because Nesbitt is incarcerated, the notice of appeal is 

considered filed on the date it was properly delivered to prison 

officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The record does not 

conclusively reveal when Nesbitt delivered the notice of appeal 

to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, although we grant 

Nesbitt’s motion to amend his informal brief, we remand the case 

for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain 

this information from the parties and to determine whether the 

filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. 

Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to 

this court for further consideration.

REMANDED

Appeal: 14-7626 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2015 Pg: 3 of 3