Jorge Gevara v. Betty Inpold, No. 12-6949 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6949 JORGE GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BETTY INPOLD, Defendant - Appellee, and ALVIN W. KELLER, JR.; ROBERT C. LEWIS; RICHARD NEELY; LAWRENCE PARSONS; JEFFREY T. SMITH; JUDY ATWATER; DENNIS E. MARSHALL; D. HOUSE; J. HYATT; E. COLEMAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00454-RJC) Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Assistant Attorney General, Appellee. Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jorge Gevara seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) civil rights action. Appellee Betty Inpold moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. After Gevara has filed a response to the motion to dismiss. review of the record and the parties submissions, we remand to the district court. The district court entered judgment on February 28, 2012, and the notice of appeal was received in this court and forwarded to expiration the of district the court appeal on May period. 15, 2012, Because after the Gevara 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, 276 (1988). The record reveals conflicting dates as to when Gevara the gave notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. * Accordingly, we defer action on the motion to dismiss and 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 of the notice of appeal was * Gevara attests that he delivered the notice of appeal to prison authorizes for mailing on March 4, 2012 and May 9, 2012. 2 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