Charles Willingham v. Buncombe County Correctional, No. 13-6539 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 17, 2013.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6539 CHARLES WILLINGHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BUNCOMBE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00383-RJC) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles D. Willingham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles court s order Willingham dismissing rights action. his filed on March 24, 2013. * to 42 to U.S.C. appeal ยง 1983 the district (2006) civil The district court s order was entered on the docket on January 15, 2013. appears seeks claim he did Willingham s notice of appeal was In the notice of appeal, Willingham not receive notice of the district court s order until March 24, 2013. Where, as here, a pro se appellant of files an untimely notice appeal offering some excuse for its untimeliness, that notice is properly construed as a motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). (D.C. Cir. 2001). United States v. Feuver, 236 F.3d 725, 729 n.7 Accordingly, we defer action on Willingham s motion to appoint counsel and remand the case to the district court for that court to determine whether Willingham can satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6). 32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th Cir. 1994). Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 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.