Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06489/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06489-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Preston McClain
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6489

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL PRESTON MCCLAIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (7:11-cr-00477-HMH-1; 7:14-cv-02671-HMH)

Submitted: August 6, 2015 Decided: August 17, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Preston McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean 

Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6489 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/17/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Preston McClain, a federal prisoner, seeks to 

appeal the district court’s order granting the Government’s 

motion for summary judgment and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion to vacate. Parties in a civil action in which the 

United States is a party have sixty days following entry of the 

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

4(a)(1)(B). “[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 McClain 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 McClain delivered the notice of appeal 

to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, 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: 15-6489 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/17/2015 Pg: 2 of 2