Court Opinion

ID: 9890434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 21:00:38.621199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:12.662610
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6445      Doc: 16         Filed: 10/11/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6445

        ANTHONY FRED MARTIN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        SUSAN DUFFY,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:15-cv-04947-DCN)

        Submitted: September 6, 2023                                    Decided: October 11, 2023

        Before GREGORY, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN LAW
        FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6445       Doc: 16         Filed: 10/11/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Anthony Fred Martin, a South Carolina prisoner, filed a civil action against

        Defendant Susan Duffy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury ultimately found in Duffy’s

        favor, and the district court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. On

        March 22, 2023, the district court denied Martin’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or

        amend the judgment. Martin now seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his

        Rule 59(e) motion. Duffy has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, which Martin

        opposes.

               The district court entered its order on March 22, 2023. In civil cases, parties have

        30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 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); see Parrish v. United States, 74 F.4th 160, 162 (4th Cir. 2023).

        Because Martin is incarcerated, the notice of appeal 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, 267 (1988).

               The record does not conclusively establish whether Martin provided his notice of

        appeal to prison officials for mailing on or before April 21, 2023. Accordingly, we defer

        ruling on Duffy’s motion to dismiss at this juncture, and we remand the case for the limited

        purpose of allowing the district court to make this finding and to determine whether Martin

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6445       Doc: 16         Filed: 10/11/2023       Pg: 3 of 3

        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

                                                      3