Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Edward P. Taylor v. W.A. Bost, Captain, Lexington County Council, 91-6521 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6521 Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 23, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 931 F.2d 55 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Edward P. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.A. BOST, Captain, Lexington County Council, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-6521. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted April 8, 1991. Decided Apr
More

931 F.2d 55
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Edward P. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
W.A. BOST, Captain, Lexington County Council, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-6521.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 8, 1991.
Decided April 23, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-89-1735-3)

Edward P. Taylor, appellant pro se.

Thomas C.R. Legare, Jr., Nexsen, Pruett, Jacobs & Pollard, Columbia, S.C., for appellees.

D.S.C

REMANDED.

Before MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The notice of appeal in this case was received in the district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the notice is considered filed as of the date appellant delivered it to prison officials for forwarding to the court. The record does not reveal when appellant delivered the notice of appeal for mailing to the court. Accordingly, we remand the case for the district court to obtain this information from the parties and make the requisite findings under Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this Court for further consideration.

2

REMANDED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer