Filed: Aug. 05, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6155 STEVEN E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT ROBERT FRIEND, Sergeant; OFFICER LINDBURG, are sued in both their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01240-BEL) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6155 STEVEN E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT ROBERT FRIEND, Sergeant; OFFICER LINDBURG, are sued in both their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01240-BEL) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6155
STEVEN E. TARPLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT ROBERT FRIEND, Sergeant; OFFICER LINDBURG, are
sued in both their individual and official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-01240-BEL)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven E. Tarpley seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend
the judgment. The notice of appeal was received in the district
court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Because
Tarpley 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 reveal when Tarpley
gave the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing.
Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of
allowing the district court to obtain this information from the
parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack. The record, as
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration.
REMANDED
2