Wesley Rudolph Wilder, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Chairman of the Central Classification Board, Commonwealthof Virginia, Department of Corrections, Authority Atnottoway Correctional Center, Commonwealth of Virginia,department of Corrections, Defendants-appellees, 861 F.2d 267 (4th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 861 F.2d 267 (4th Cir. 1988) Submitted July 29, 1988. Decided Sept. 30, 1988

Wesley Rudolph Wilder, appellant pro se.

Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Wesley Rudolph Wilder, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. His notice of appeal is dated April 20, 1988, but it was not received by this Court until May 18, 1988,1  seven days after the expiration of 30-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1).

In Houston v. Lack, 56 U.S.L.W. 4728 (U.S. June 24, 1988) (No. 87-5428), the Supreme Court held that a prisoner's notice of appeal is filed when he delivers it to prison officials for forwarding to the court. We cannot determine from the records before us when Wilder gave his notice of appeal to prison authorities or other federal officials, particularly U.S. post office employees. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and remand the case to the district court. On remand, that court will obtain this information from the parties, making any necessary evidentiary rulings. The cases, as supplemented, then will be returned to this Court for further consideration.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

REMANDED.

 1

If a notice of appeal is erroneously sent to this Court, rather than the district court, it is deemed filed in the district court on the day it was received by this Court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.