Paul Thompson, Jr. v. Captain Dolan, No. 15-7680 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 18, 2017.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7680 PAUL CLEVELAND THOMPSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CAPTAIN DOLAN; LT. R. THOMPSON; GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR SEAY; BLACKWELL; WARE; LEWIS; BASKERVILLE; JENNINGS; WHITE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COOPER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DIMING; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, sued in their official and individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:12-cv-00209-RBS-TEM) Submitted: April 27, 2016 Decided: May 2, 2016 Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Washington, D.C.; Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order complaint. denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) Thompson filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion that the district court received shortly after expiration of the period for timely filing such a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b), (e). If timely filed, Thompson’s Rule 59 motion extended the 30-day period in which to appeal the district court’s order. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (v). Fed. R. App. P. Because Thompson is incarcerated, his motion is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. 487 U.S. 266 (1988). See Houston v. Lack, The record does not reveal when Thompson gave the motion 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 Houston v. Lack. 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.