**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6280** 

BERNARD MCFADDEN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. SIMON MAJOR, Director of Sumter

- Lee Regional Detention Center , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv - 02927

- JMC )

Submitted : July 13, 2011 Decided: July 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion
. Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., Joel Steve Hughes, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bernard McFad den , proceeding pro se, appeal s the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 201 1 ) petiti on. On January 14, 2011, t he magistrate judge issued a report recommending dismissal of McFadden’s petition and denial of his motion to amend , with notice that objections w ere to be filed within fourteen days of service of the report
. On February 7, 2011 , the district court dismissed McFadden’s action, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and stating that because McFadden failed to object to the report , he was not entitled to de novo review, an explanation of the district court’s decision , or th e right to appeal. McFadden timely appealed. On appeal, McFadden complains that he did not receive the magistrate judge’s report or the accompanying notice
. A litigant who fails to timely object in writing to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fa ct and conclusions of law is not entitled to de novo review of the magistrate judge’s determinations, 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b)(1)(B) ( West Supp. 2011 ), and is barred from contesting these determinations on appeal. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985). However, this waiver is a prudential rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 93

- 94 (4th Cir. 1984).3 Consequently, when a litigant is proceeding pro se, this c ourt has held that he must be given fair no tice of the consequences of failing to object before such a procedural default will result. Wright , 766 F.2d at 846. When objections to a magistrate judge’s determinations have been filed, de novo review by an Article III judge is not only required by st atute, Orpiano v. Johnson , 687 F.2d 44, 47

- 48 (4th Cir. 1982), but has been held indispensable to the constitutionality of the Magistrate Judge’s Act. United States v. Raddatz , 447 U.S. 667, 681

- 82 (1980). The record supports McFadden’s claim that he did not receive the magistrate judge’s report. On January 18, 2011, the court received McFadden’s change of address notice. On that same day, the magistrate judge’s report was mailed to McFadden’s original address. There is no indication in the record t hat the report was forwarded to McFadden’s new address. Because it appears that McFadden did not receive either the magistrate judge’s report itself or notice of the consequences of failing to object to the report , we are constrained to return the case
to the district court so that McFadden can be provided with a copy of the report and notice of the need to file timely and specific objections to it. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent wi th this4 opinion. 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