Task: songer_timely

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it could not reach the merits of the case because the litigants had not complied with some rule relating to timeliness, a filing fee, or because a statute of limitations had expired?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM:
An Alabama prison guard opened a cell door to allow the occupant to place a radio outside for the enjoyment of other prisoners. The occupant thereupon stabbed Donald Lee Fox, a fellow convict, working outside the cell. Fox went to the hospital and was reported dead. Some of his personal property was distributed to other inmates. Fox lived, however, and brought this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 suit against the Alabama prison authorities to recover for his personal injuries and lost property. A prior panel of this Court held he was entitled to trial on the merits of his allegation that official negligence was responsible for the harm he suffered. Fox v. Sullivan, 539 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1976).
On remand, the district court found the officers involved were not negligent. The court found the jail’s procedures for inmate protection were reasonable, and that the officer opening the door had no basis for anticipating the attack. The court said that although some of Fox’ books arid magazines were given to a fellow inmate, some were later returned. The officers acted under the belief Fox was dead. Testimony also established that the officers thought some of the disputed property did not belong to Fox. His other personal effects were properly preserved. The failure to-return a small portion was not the result of intent or negligence.
The only question for our review is whether the district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). We conclude they are not. The district court properly applied the law under which the case was previously remanded to it.
AFFIRMED.

Question: Did the court conclude that it could not reach the merits of the case because the litigants had not complied with some rule relating to timeliness, a filing fee, or because a statute of limitations had expired?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D