Bilal Al-Haqq v. Oliver Washington, No. 15-7522 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 3, 2017.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7522 BILAL A. AL-HAQQ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SGT OLIVER WASHINGTON, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN PATE, Warden; MAJOR WALTER WORRICK; AW RANDALL WILLIAMS; LT RICHARD JENKINS; LT TYLER; CPL MARVIN BRYANT; MS. EDITH WETHERBEE; MRS. VIRGINIA GRUBBS; MS. V. JONES, official and individual capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (2:13-cv-02867-TMC) Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bilal A. Al-Haqq, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Bass Lohr, Andrew Yoho, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort, James South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Bilal appeal judge’s A. the Al-Haqq, district a South court’s recommendation and § 1983 (2012) complaint. Carolina order denying prisoner, adopting relief seeks to the magistrate his 42 on U.S.C. Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not a party have 30 days following entry of judgment in which to file a notice of appeal. 4(a)(1)(A). Fed. R. App. P. “[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 Al-Haqq is incarcerated, the notice of appeal is considered filed on 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, 276 (1988). The record does not conclusively reveal when Al-Haqq delivered 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 3
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.
