Case ID: f-appx_179/html/0205-01.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

Milton TOWNSEND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.P. ROGERS, Regional Director; Marcia Seay, Institutional Ombudsman; Susan Carson, Operations Officer; Alton Baskerville, Warden; Sheila Hughes, Assistant Grievance Ombudsman, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-6608.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 21, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 10, 2006.
    Milton Townsend, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Milton Townsend, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Townsend’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. On appeal, Townsend contended that he did not receive notice of the magistrate judge’s report. We remanded for further proceedings on whether Townsend received the report. After an evidentiary hearing held by the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge’s report proposed that Townsend did not receive timely notice of the original report. Neither party filed objections and the district court ’ adopted the report and forwarded its memorandum and order upon remand to this court.

Because Townsend did not receive timely notice of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we vacate the district court’s final order dismissing Townsend’s complaint entered April 5, 2004. We remand the case to the district court for further proceedings to give Townsend the opportunity to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation entered February 27, 2004, or file an amended complaint, as outlined in the magistrate judge’s report. 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