Case Name: Steven E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant Robert FRIEND, Sergeant; Officer Lindburg, are sued in both their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-05
Citations: 390 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 10-6155
Parties: Steven E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant Robert FRIEND, Sergeant; Officer Lindburg, are sued in both their individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
Steven E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant Robert FRIEND, Sergeant; Officer Lindburg, are sued in both their individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-6155.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 27, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 5, 2010.
Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven E. Tarpley seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The notice of appeal was received in the district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Because Tarpley is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of 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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). The record does not reveal when Tarpley gave 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.