Fred Halcomb, Jr. v. Warden Truitt
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Fred Halcomb, Jr. v. Warden Truitt
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7149 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7149
FRED R. HALCOMB, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN TRUITT,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01877-JD)
Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fred R. Halcomb, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7149 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Fred R. Halcomb, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Halcomb’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition. In a civil case, a party must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment
or order being appealed, 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).
Because Halcomb 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 conclusively establish when
Halcomb gave the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. The notice of appeal
contains an unsworn and unnotarized handwritten note by Halcomb that was dated within
the appeal period, but the postmark date on the envelope that contained the notice of appeal
suggests that prison officials may have received the notice after the expiration of the appeal
period. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district
court to determine whether Halcomb 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished