Case ID: f-appx_7/html/0247-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert John SCHIEBLE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Employment Security Commission; Dorchester County Judiciary Commission; Dorchester County Sheriff’s Department, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-2476.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2001.
    Decided April 16, 2001.
    Robert John Schieble, Jr., pro se. Harold Williams Funderburk, Jr., South Carolina Employment Security Commission, Columbia, SC, for appellees.
    Before WILKINS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Robert John Schieble, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action. The district court dismissed the action upon the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Although we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings, we express no opinion regarding the merits of this action.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (1994), the district court is obligated to review de novo those portions of the magistrate judge’s report to which objections are filed. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93 (4th Cir.1984). The district court’s order, however, does not state that it conducted a review of the record as to those objections or made a decision on the disputed issues de novo. Because Schieble made timely objections to the magistrate judge’s factual findings, the district court’s error was not harmless. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand the matter for the district court to conduct de novo review and issue a decision, or state that it conducted such review before rendering its previous decision. We deny Sehieble’s motion for general relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED.