UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7120

JEFFREY CORPORAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN WEBER; ASSISTANT WARDEN BUTLER; SECURITY CHIEF 

ARNOLD; F. TAYLOR, Executive Director; COMMISSIONER HILL; 

SECRETARY GREEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-02681-DKC)

Submitted: December 1, 2022 Decided: July 19, 2023

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, GREGORY, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Corporal, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Diana Lee, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7120 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 6
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Jeffrey Corporal, a Maryland inmate incarcerated in Western Correctional 

Institution (“WCI”), appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As an initial matter, although 

we liberally construe Corporal’s filings in deference to his pro se status, see Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), we nevertheless confine our review on appeal to the issues 

raised in Corporal’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 

170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth 

Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). 

Corporal first contends that the district court erred in granting Defendants’ “belated 

motion” for additional time to respond to his complaint. When a filing deadline has 

expired, a court may extend the deadline “on motion . . . if the party failed to act because 

of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Corporal contends that the district court 

improperly extended Defendants’ response deadline after it had expired without making a 

finding of excusable neglect. The district court did not address Rule 6(b)(1) when it granted 

Defendants’ motion. However, in its subsequent memorandum opinion, the court 

recognized the appropriate standard and reiterated the importance of compliance with 

deadlines. The district court nevertheless emphasized the policy preference for deciding 

cases on the merits and observed that Defendants ultimately had moved to dismiss within 

the extended deadline. Thus, we find that any error in granting Defendants’ motion was 

harmless, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 61 (directing courts to “disregard all errors and defects” in a 

proceeding “that do not affect any party’s substantial rights”), and we discern no abuse of 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7120 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 6
3 

discretion in the court’s order denying Corporal’s related request for default judgment, see 

Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 616 F.3d 413, 417 (4th Cir. 

2010) (“We have repeatedly expressed a strong preference that, as a general matter, 

defaults be avoided and that claims and defenses be disposed of on their merits.”). 

Next, Corporal challenges the district court’s dismissal of his claim that Defendants 

denied him meaningful access to the courts by using an inefficient private mail delivery 

system, rather than the United States Postal Service (USPS), to deliver inmates’ legal mail, 

and by severely curtailing WCI’s library services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Corporal contends that, as a result of Defendants’ actions, he lost his right to file a petition 

for review of the Inmate Grievance Office’s (“IGO”) decision in IGO case No. 202-003-

50, in which he challenged the conditions of his confinement.1

 The district court found 

that Corporal failed to connect his ability to litigate this conditions-of-confinement claim 

with the alleged untimely mail delivery and, therefore, concluded that Corporal failed to 

state a claim. 

We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss. Carey v. Throwe, 

957 F.3d 468, 474 (4th Cir. 2020). To survive a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, the 

plaintiff must allege “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “We take all well-pled facts to be true, drawing all reasonable inferences 

1 The district court mistakenly attributed the allegations Corporal raised in case 

No. 202-003-50 to a different grievance. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7120 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 6
4 

in favor of the plaintiff.” Carey, 957 F.3d at 474. “[A] plaintiff need not demonstrate that 

[his] right to relief is probable or that alternative explanations are less likely; rather, [he] 

must merely advance [his] claim across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Houck v. 

Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 484 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Because “[a] motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint . . . our 

evaluation is . . . generally limited to a review of the allegations of the complaint itself.”2

 

Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016). 

“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged 

deprivation was committed under color of state law.” Thomas v. Salvation Army S. 

Territory, 841 F.3d 632, 637 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is 

“established beyond doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.” 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), overruled in part on other grounds by Lewis 

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). That right “requires prison authorities to assist inmates in 

the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate 

law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Id. at 828. As 

relevant here, a prisoner can raise an access-to-courts claim in aid “of specific cases that 

cannot now be tried . . . , no matter what official action may be in the future,” i.e., a 

2 The district court therefore erred by considering a declaration from WCI’s 

librarian that Defendants filed in support of their alternative request for summary judgment. 

Cf. Goines, 822 F.3d at 166 (explaining that only a limited class of documents, including 

documents “submitted by the movant” that are “integral to the complaint” and of 

undisputed authenticity, may be considered at motion to dismiss stage). 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7120 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/19/2023 Pg: 4 of 6
5 

backward-looking access claim. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413-14 (2002). 

To state a backward-looking access claim, Corporal was required to allege that prison 

officials “hindered his efforts to pursue a [nonfrivolous] legal claim,” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 

351; see id. at 353, relating to his criminal judgment or to the conditions of his confinement, 

id. at 354-55. 

Accepting Corporal’s allegations as true—as we must at this stage—he filed a 

grievance with the IGO in which he challenged the conditions of his confinement 

including, inter alia, the allegation that he was denied blankets, sheets, and adequate 

clothing during the month of December. Because Defendants used a private mail system 

for delivering IGO decisions, Corporal received notification of the IGO’s dismissal of this 

grievance after most of his time to petition the relevant state circuit court for review had 

expired. Although Corporal still attempted to submit his petition for review within the 

required time limits, his efforts were further frustrated by Defendants’ policy for operating 

the prison library. As a result, he was prevented from seeking review of the dismissal of 

the grievance. We find that these allegations were sufficient to plausibly state a claim for 

relief.3

3 We express no opinion on the ultimate merits of Corporal’s access-to-courts claim.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7120 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/19/2023 Pg: 5 of 6
6 

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of this claim and remand for 

further proceedings. We affirm the remainder of the court’s order. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, 

VACATED IN PART, 

AND REMANDED 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7120 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/19/2023 Pg: 6 of 6