Case ID: f-appx_249/html/0309-01.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

James Michael GARREN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Chris RAYMOND; Unknown Officers, Spartanburg Sheriffs Office; Citizen, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-6492.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 27, 2007.
    Decided: Oct. 3, 2007.
    James Michael Garren, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

James Michael Garren appeals the district court’s orders accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court following de novo review that Garren’s complaint was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2864, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Garren v. Raymond, No. 9:07-cv-00408-DCN (D.S.C. Mar. 9 and Mar. 19, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Although the district court expressly stated it conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we conclude the district court incorrectly found Gar-ren's objections to the report and recommendation were untimely. The magistrate judge issued his report on February 16, 2007, and under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (e), objections were due on March 8, 2007. Though the district court stamped Garren's objections as received on March 9, 2007, we find the objections should have been deemed timely filed on March 7, 2007, pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because the district court nonetheless conducted a de novo review, we conclude this error was harmless.