Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06979/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06979-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6979

WADE STEPNEY, JR., a/k/a Wade Stephney, Jr., a/k/a Wade 

Stephney, a/k/a Wade Stepheny, Jr., 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

D. BECKWITH, SCDC Warden, Wateree River Correctional 

Institution; DEPUTY WARDEN BLANDING; MAJOR BOGGS; CAPTAIN 

GASDEN; LIEUTENANT BROWN; SERGEANT DAVIS; SERGEANT HOOSIER, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (8:09-cv-00771-MBS) 

Submitted: December 16, 2009 Decided: January 6, 2010 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Wade Stepney, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-6979 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/06/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Wade Stepney, Jr. appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. In its final 

order, the district court stated that Stepney had not filed 

objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and the 

court was therefore not required to give any explanation for 

adopting the recommendation. Following his timely appeal, 

Stepney wrote a letter to the district court informing the court 

that he had mailed objections and questioning whether the court 

had received them. Upon review, the district court discovered 

the objections had been inadvertently overlooked. 

The district court has requested that this case be 

returned to the district court so that Stepney’s objections may 

be addressed. We grant the district court’s request and order a 

limited remand for that purpose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a); 

Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 1999). 

The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court 

for further consideration. If still dissatisfied, the parties 

can also appeal to this court from any subsequent final order of 

the district court. 

REMANDED

Appeal: 09-6979 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/06/2010 Pg: 2 of 2