Charles Thomas v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrections , 590 F. App'x 289 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7551
CHARLES EDWARD THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Former
Prison Director; MEDICAL DIVISION; FINANCIAL RECORDS, In
their individual and official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:14-cv-00302-DCN)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Thomas seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss, after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, his complaint
alleging Defendants violated his constitutional, federal and
state law rights. Parties are accorded thirty 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).
The district court entered its judgment dismissing
Thomas’s action on May 28, 2014. However, Thomas did not file
what was construed as a notice of appeal until October 19, 2014, *
in which he inquires about the status of his objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Because Thomas
suggests that he did not receive the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and since his
*
For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on Thomas’s filing is the earliest date it could have
been 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).
2
inquiry into the status of his objections to that recommendation
was made within 180 days of the entry of the district court’s
entry adopting the recommendation, we construe Thomas’s October
19, 2014 filing as a motion to reopen the time to appeal under
Rule 4(a)(6). See United States v. Feuver, 236 F.3d 725, 729
n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we remand the case to the
district court for the court to determine whether Thomas can
satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6). See Ogden v. San Juan
Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th Cir. 1994). The record, as
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration.
REMANDED
3