857 F.2d 1469
Unpublished Disposition
Raymond A. KAMINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Arnold HOPKINS, Commissioner of Corrections; Bishop
Robinson, Secretary of Public Safety; Captain Pottillo,
Assistant Unit Manager; Sgt. Myers; Officer Clay; Officer
Handy; Officer Vaughan; Officer Wheeler; Officer Kane;
John P. Wilt, Warden; Sgt. Pindell; Sgt. Cough; Ms.
Barthlow, Counselor; Mr. Wells, Counselor; Robert Kokoski;
Officer C. Kessler; Officer P. Reed; John Doe--1; John
Doe--2; Officer Dorsey; Sgt. John Doe--3; Robert Kowski,
Defendants-Appellees.
Walter JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Arnold HOPKINS, Commissioner of Corrections; Bishop
Robinson, Secretary of Public Safety; Captain Pottillo,
Assistant Unit Manager; Sgt. Myers; Officer Clay; Officer
Handy; Officer Vaughan; Officer Wheeler; Officer Kane;
John P. Wilt, Warden; Sgt. Pindell; Sgt. Cough; Ms.
Barthlow, Counselor; Mr. Wells, Counselor; Robert Kokoski;
Officer C. Kessler; Officer P. Reed; John Doe--1; John
Doe--2; Officer Dorsey; Sgt. John Doe--3; Robert Kowski,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 88-6040, 88-6041.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 1988.
Decided: Aug. 30, 1988.
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Raymond A. Kaminski, Walter Jefferson, appellants pro se.
Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In Houston v. Lack, 56 U.S.L.W. 4728 (U.S. June 24, 1988) (No. 87-5428), the Supreme Court held that a prisoner's notice of appeal is to be considered filed when the inmate delivers it to prison officials for forwarding to the district court. We cannot ascertain from the records before us when Kaminski and Jefferson gave their notices of appeal to prison authorities or other federal officials, particularly U.S. post office employees. We accordingly remand these cases to the district court. On remand, that court will obtain this information from the parties, making any necessary evidentiary rulings. The cases, as supplemented, then will be returned to this Court for further consideration.
As the records and other materials before us indicate that it will not significantly aid the decisional process, we dispense with oral argument.
REMANDED.