Court Opinion

ID: 9402879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-17 21:00:36.172929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.162973
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1425      Doc: 9        Filed: 06/16/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1425

        ANDREA STILLWELL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED   STATES             OF        AMERICA;       DRUG         ENFORCEMENT
        ADMINISTRATION,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00298-WO-JLW)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                         Decided: June 16, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Andrea Stillwell, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1425       Doc: 9         Filed: 06/16/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Andrea Stillwell appeals the district court’s order adopting as modified the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Stillwell’s

        complaint seeking the return of property—including electronic devices, storage media, and

        three suppressors—seized by the Government during a search of her home. For the reasons

        that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

               Stillwell first contends that the district court erred in adopting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation to dismiss her claim for the return of the electronic devices and storage

        media. But because Stillwell failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on

        this claim, Stillwell has waived appellate review of the dismissal of the claim. See

        Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 103 (4th Cir. 2020).

               Stillwell next challenges the district court’s rejection of her request for the return of

        the three suppressors. The Government argued in a response brief filed in the district court

        that returning the suppressors to Stillwell would contravene Henderson v. United States,

        575 U.S. 622, 630 (2015), because Stillwell’s husband is a felon and his actual or

        constructive possession of the suppressors would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In a reply

        brief, Stillwell insisted that her husband would not exercise any control over the

        suppressors if they were released to her because her husband is serving a life sentence in

        federal prison. If the district court rejected that proposition, however, Stillwell asked the

        court to order the transfer of the suppressors to a firearms dealer for sale—a remedy that

        the Supreme Court approved in Henderson.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1425       Doc: 9          Filed: 06/16/2023       Pg: 3 of 4

               The district court agreed with the Government that returning the suppressors to

        Stillwell would conflict with Henderson. And the district court declined to address

        Stillwell’s request for the transfer of the suppressors to a firearms dealer for sale because

        it was made for the first time in a reply brief. See M.D.N.C. Civ. R. 7.3(h).

               We conclude that the district court erred in two respects when considering the

        suppressors. First, the district court failed to either assess the credibility of Stillwell’s

        assurances that her husband would not exercise control over the suppressors if they were

        released to her or ask her for additional assurances. See Henderson, 575 U.S. at 630-31.

        Second, the district court unjustifiably declined to address Stillwell’s alternative request

        that the suppressors be transferred to a firearms dealer for sale. The Government raised

        the Supreme Court’s decision in Henderson for the first time in its response brief, and the

        district court’s local rules allow a party to file a reply brief that addresses a new issue raised

        in a response brief. We are thus satisfied that Stillwell—who proceeded pro se in the

        district court—appropriately responded to the Government’s Henderson argument by

        proposing an alternative remedy approved in that decision and that the district court should

        have considered the merits of that proposal.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Stillwell’s request for the

        return of the electronic devices and storage media. We vacate, however, the district court’s

        denial of Stillwell’s request for the return of the three suppressors and remand for further

                                                        3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1425      Doc: 9         Filed: 06/16/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        proceedings on that request. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                     AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
                                                                        AND REMANDED

               *
                We observe that the district court never resolved Stillwell’s argument that the
        Government lacked probable cause to seize the three suppressors. The district court should
        consider that argument in the first instance on remand, if necessary.

                                                    4