Opinion

Brown v. Metts

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Sep 5, 2000
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.1%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FREDERICK BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES R. METTS, Sheriff; CAPTAIN

No. 00-6512

WILLIAMS; MAJOR HARRIS; EMSA

CORRECTIONAL CARE; ARAMARK

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-99-1040-3-10BC)

Submitted: August 15, 2000

Decided: September 5, 2000

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Frederick Brown, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,

DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Brown appeals from the district court's order granting

summary judgment to Appellees on his action under 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1983 (West Supp. 2000). Brown claims on appeal that he did not

timely receive mail regarding his action because he was transferred

to two federal prisons and received medical treatment during the time

in which he was required to respond to the district court's orders. The

district court's file shows that a change of address notification from

Brown was docketed on September 16, 1999. In that letter, Brown

informed the district court that he had been transferred from Lexing-

ton County Jail in Lexington, South Carolina, to the federal prison in

Atlanta, Georgia. Brown informed the court that he did not know how

long he would be at the Atlanta facility, but stated that he wanted to

be sure his mail was forwarded. Although the record does not reveal

the precise date, Brown was later transferred to the United States

Medical Center (USMC) at Springfield, Missouri.

According to Brown, he did not receive the motion for summary

judgment, the Roseboro* notice, the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation, or the order granting summary judgment until after

he arrived at USMC. The district court's file establishes that, after

receipt of Brown's change of address, the next document sent to

Brown by the court was nonetheless sent to the Lexington County

Jail. Because the file does not indicate the address to which the subse-

quent notices and orders were sent, it appears that they were likewise

sent to the Lexington County address. In addition, the Appellees'

motion for summary judgment and supporting documents, filed after

Brown notified the district court of his change of address, were sent

to Brown at the Lexington County Jail, and the record does not reflect

whether these documents were forwarded to Brown in Atlanta.

_________________________________________________________________

*Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).

2

Although Brown asserts that he notified the district court of his trans-

fer to USMC, the record does not contain a change of address notifi-

cation regarding the second transfer.

Because it appears from the record that Brown may not have

received notice of the motion for summary judgment and other docu-

ments in a timely fashion, despite at least one notification that he had

been transferred, we vacate the district court's grant of summary

judgment and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-

sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.