Case ID: f-appx_7/html/0181-01.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

Kevin L. CHOICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Condon, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 00-7298.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 31, 2001.
    Decided March 26, 2001.
    Kevin L. Choice, pro se.
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Kevin L. Choice appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000), without prejudice. Because the district court mistakenly concluded that Choice had failed to file objections, it accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge without further review and dismissed the petition. Although we express no opinion as to the ultimate success of Choice’s claims, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Choice noted specific and timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that the petition be dismissed. The district court was required to review the disputed issues de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (1994). Reliance upon the magistrate judge’s summary of the record is insufficient in this regard. Thus, the district court was required to review the disputed portions of the record in the case. See id.; Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir.1982).

Because the district court’s order does not indicate whether a de novo review was, in fact, conducted, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the decision below, and remand for the district court to conduct a de novo review of the disputed portions of the record. 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. 
      
      
        Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).