Otis Madison v. Director of the Va. Dept. of Corrections, No. 16-6831 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 8, 2017.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6831 OTIS T. MADISON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00422-HEH-RCY) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otis T. Madison, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Otis T. Madison seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. and denying Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 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). a civil case is “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Because Madison is incarcerated, the notice of appeal is considered filed institution’s on the internal date mailing it was system.” “deposited Fed. R. in the App. P. 4(c)(1); accord Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The record does not conclusively reveal when Madison delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. we remand the case for the limited purpose of Accordingly, allowing the district court to determine this fact and, having done so, to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED 2

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.