Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06968/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06968-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dommernick Brown
Appellant
B. R. Jett
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6968

DOMMERNICK BROWN, United States of America, Suis Juris- Pro 

Se and Pro Se Coach-In Forma Pauperis and Supporter of The 

Second Coming of Jesus Christ Super-Star The Messiah and 

Super-Star-and The Version of The New World Order #777 

ALMIGHTY-GODS New World Order 777,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HON. WARDEN B. R. JETT, Warden of the Federal Medical 

Center (located in Rochester, Minnesota),

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:15-cv-01983-TLW)

Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 6, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dommernick Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6968 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dommernick Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order dimissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition

without prejudice. The district court referred this case to a 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). 

The magistrate judge recommended that the § 2241 petition be 

dismissed without prejudice and advised Brown that failure to 

file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation. The district court found that no objections 

were filed and dismissed the § 2241 petition. The record 

discloses, however, that Brown filed timely objections to the 

magistrate judge’s report. The objections were mistakenly 

construed as a notice of appeal of the district court’s order 

because they were received after entry of that order. 

We accordingly vacate the district court’s order and remand 

for consideration of Brown’s timely objections.* We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

 * We have construed Brown’s informal brief as a timely 

notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Smith v. 

Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992).

Appeal: 15-6968 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/06/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Appeal: 15-6968 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/06/2015 Pg: 3 of 3