David Montgomery v. Conmed, Inc., No. 16-1133 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 24, 2017.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1133 DAVID MICHAEL MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CONMED, INC., Defendant – Appellee, and JASON BINGHAM, Cpl.; JOHN CARHART, Sgt.; SENIOR TROOPER CLAYCOMB; FRANK FORNOSS, Str.; STRED WINKLER, Senior Trooper; SGT. GALLIGAN; SCOTT PEDERSON; K. R. JENKINS, Officer; JAMIE GROVER, Officer; CHRIS TAYLOR, Tfc.; EDWARD EICHER, Sgt.; TPR BISHOP; THE CARROLL COUNTY JAIL; MR. HARDINGER, Warden; ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY POLICE; STATE POLICE WESTMINSTER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00930-ELH) Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. April 22, 2016 David Michael Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Althauser, Megan Green Anderson, Eric Matthew Rigatuso, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: David court’s Michael order complaint. Montgomery denying relief seeks on appeal 42 his to the U.S.C. district § 1983 (2012) The notice of appeal was received in the district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Because Montgomery is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly mailing to the court. delivered to prison officials for Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record does not reveal when Montgomery gave appeal the notice Accordingly, we of remand the to prison case for officials the for limited mailing. 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.