Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-03-07803/USCOURTS-ca4-03-07803-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Devon Singletary
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Document 1

Document 2

Appeal: 03-7803 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/04/2006 Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex

1100 E. Main Street, Suite 501

Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517

Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

www.ca4.uscourts.gov Telephone

(804) 916-2700

 January 4, 2006

 Clerk, US D/Ct

 Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro

 Suite 400

 U. S. Courthouse

 324 West Market Street

 P. O. Box 2708

 Greensboro, NC 27401

 Re: 03-7803 US v. Edward D. Singletary

 CA-03-240-1

 CR-00-314

 Dear Clerk:

 Enclosed is an opinion of this Court remanding the case for

 limited purpose. The record on appeal is being returned for the

 district court's use. Please return the record, as supplemented,

 to this Court after completing the determination on remand.

 Yours truly,

 PATRICIA S. CONNOR

 Clerk

 /s/ Lisa D. Nesbitt

 By: ________________________

 Deputy Clerk

 cc: Robert Albert Jamison Lang

 Edward Devon Singletary

Appeal: 03-7803 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/04/2006 Pg: 2 of 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7803

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD DEVON SINGLETARY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CR-00-314; CA-03-240-1)

Submitted: December 9, 2005 Decided: January 4, 2006

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Devon Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison

Lang, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Appeal: 03-7803 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/04/2006 Pg: 3 of 5
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edward Devon Singletary seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). In civil actions in which the United States or an officer

or agency thereof is a party, all parties are accorded sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to

note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district

court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). These

time periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir.,

Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

We remanded this case to the district court for the court

to determine whether Singletary timely filed a motion to extend the

appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5). See United States v. Singletary,

88 F. App’x 652 (4th Cir. 2004) (unpublished). After reviewing the

parties’ arguments on remand, the magistrate judge found that

prison officials collected legal mail daily on weekdays and that,

because the mail log indicated the notice of appeal was accepted by

the mail room on Monday, November 3, 2003, Singletary deposited the

mail in the legal mail box no earlier than Friday, October 31,

2003, two days after the excusable neglect period expired. Thus,

the magistrate judge apparently concluded that the appeal period

could not be extended. See Hensley v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 651

Appeal: 03-7803 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/04/2006 Pg: 4 of 5
- 3 -

F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981) (finding that expiration of time

limits in Rule 4 deprives court of jurisdiction over case). The

record was then returned to us for further review.

It appears from our review of the record that the

magistrate judge’s order may be a dispositive ruling as it

potentially ends Singletary’s ability to pursue his appeal. See

Vitols v. Citizens Banking Co., 984 F.2d 168, 169-70 (6th Cir.

1993) (holding that “a magistrate judge, acting pursuant to . . .

§ 636(b)(1) . . . , has no authority to issue a dispositive ruling

on a motion to certify a district court order for interlocutory

appeal under [28 U.S.C.] § 1292(b) [(2000)]”). Thus, the

magistrate judge only is authorized under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2005) to make a recommendation to the

district court. Once the magistrate judge files a report and

recommendation, the parties have ten days to object. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews “de novo . . . those

portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. 

Because the parties did not have an opportunity to object

to the magistrate judge’s findings, we remand the case to the

district court for the limited purposes of providing notice of the

right to file objections and of allowing the district court to

conduct the appropriate review. The record, as supplemented, will

then be returned to this court for further consideration. 

REMANDED

Appeal: 03-7803 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/04/2006 Pg: 5 of 5