Case Name: Vernon RIPLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-15
Citations: 158 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 05-7103
Parties: Vernon RIPLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 437–437

Head Matter:
Vernon RIPLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7103.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2005.
Decided Dec. 15, 2005.
Vernon Ripley, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vernon Ripley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motions filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b). The notice of appeal was received in the district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Under Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), the notice is considered filed as of the date Ripley properly delivered it to prison officials for mailing to the court. The record does not reveal if or when Ripley complied with the requirements of Fed. RApp. P. 4(c)(1). Accordingly, we remand the case for 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