Court Opinion

ID: 9947167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:01:07.576494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:51.518280
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7149      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7149

        FRED R. HALCOMB, JR.,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN TRUITT,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01877-JD)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                      Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Fred R. Halcomb, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7149       Doc: 10         Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Fred R. Halcomb, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Halcomb’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254

        petition. In a civil case, a party must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment

        or order being appealed, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the

        appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.

        App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional

        requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

               Because Halcomb 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 (1988). The record does not conclusively establish when

        Halcomb gave the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. The notice of appeal

        contains an unsworn and unnotarized handwritten note by Halcomb that was dated within

        the appeal period, but the postmark date on the envelope that contained the notice of appeal

        suggests that prison officials may have received the notice after the expiration of the appeal

        period. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district

        court to determine whether Halcomb timely noted an appeal under Rule 4(c)(1) and

        Houston. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further

        consideration.

                                                                                        REMANDED

                                                      2