under the “prisoner mailbox rule,” inmate’s notice of appeal deemed “filed” on the date it was delivered to prison officials for mailing, not the date it is received by the court
How later courts described this case
- under the “prisoner mailbox rule,” inmate’s notice of appeal deemed “filed” on the date it was delivered to prison officials for mailing, not the date it is received by the court
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SAMUEL CLEMENT WENDT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 1:24CV853
)
BEN ANDERSON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
On August 5, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge’s Order
and Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Objections were filed
within the time limits prescribed by section 636.1 (Doc. 24.)
Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objection. (Docs. 25,
26.)
The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections were made and has
made a de novo determination in accord with the Magistrate Judge’s
1 Although Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s objections are untimely
(Doc. 25 at 4), because Plaintiff’s objections were dated August 22,
2025 (Doc. 24), the date they were due to be filed, and presumably
delivered that date to the prison officials for mailing, the court
considers them timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)
(under the “prisoner mailbox rule,” inmate’s notice of appeal deemed
“filed” on the date it was delivered to prison officials for mailing,
not the date it is received by the court); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (providing
that 3 days are added where service on the party to act is made by mail);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (providing that objections must be filed within
14 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation).
report. The court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent the motion seeks
injunctive or declaratory relief regarding Tabor Correctional
Institution or Defendants Warden Jamie Bullard, Unit Manager
Shawna Brown, or Unit Manager Clayton Brewer, those claims are
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that the remainder
of the motion includes requests for a preliminary injunction, a
permanent injunction, declaratory relief, ex parte injunctive
relief, and/or oral arguments, all such requests are DENIED.
/s/ Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
September 23, 2025