Court Opinion

ID: 9891569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 21:00:23.786378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.703617
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6004      Doc: 14         Filed: 10/17/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6004

        DARREL R. FISHER,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        MAUREEN LYONS REARDON; SARAH RALSTON; JUDGE W. EARL BRITT,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-ct-03186-D)

        Submitted: August 31, 2023                                    Decided: October 17, 2023

        Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Darrel R. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6004       Doc: 14          Filed: 10/17/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Darrel R. Fisher seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing the clerk not to

        accept further filings other than a notice of appeal in Fisher’s previously dismissed civil

        action. The district court received the notice of appeal after the expiration of the appeal

        period. Because Fisher is institutionalized, the notice of appeal is considered filed as of

        the date it was properly delivered to officials at the institution for mailing to the court. Fed.

        R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The record does not

        conclusively establish when Fisher deposited the notice of appeal in the institution’s

        internal mail system. Accordingly, we remand this case for the limited purpose of allowing

        the district court to make this finding and to determine whether Fisher timely noted an

        appeal under Rule 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be

        returned to this court for further consideration.

                                                                                          REMANDED

                                                       2