Case Name: Clayton WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven RYAN, Physical Therapist; Dwain M. Brewer, Officer, CO II; Roderick R. Sower, CCE Warden, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-03
Citations: 326 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 09-6063
Parties: Clayton WILLIAMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steven RYAN, Physical Therapist; Dwain M. Brewer, Officer, CO II; Roderick R. Sower, CCE Warden, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 231–231

Head Matter:
Clayton WILLIAMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steven RYAN, Physical Therapist; Dwain M. Brewer, Officer, CO II; Roderick R. Sower, CCE Warden, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-6063.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 15, 2009.
Decided: June 3, 2009.
Clayton Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clayton Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2007) civil rights action. Williams' notice of appeal was received in the district court shortly after the expiration of the thirty-day appeal period. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Because Williams is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the district court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). The date on which Williams properly delivered his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing to the district court is not fairly ascertainable from the current record.
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. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. 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.
REMANDED.