Court Opinion

ID: 1002059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:05:10.700189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:47.686351
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LEONARD A. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Warden of
Turbeville Correctional Institution;
                                                                   No. 00-6176
GEORGE MARTIN, III, Warden,
Regional Administrator; OFFICER
ARMSTRONG, Retired Deputy
Warden; SHERRY LOPEZ; DAVID
AREL,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-98-3715-2-10-AJ)

Submitted: June 30, 2000

Decided: July 18, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Leonard A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, RICH-
ARDSON & JAMES, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Leonard A. Smith appeals the district court's order accepting the
magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing this action for
lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The dismissal
was based upon Smith's failure to respond to the motion for summary
judgment filed by appellees.

Smith contends he did not receive any filings from the court indi-
cating a motion for summary judgment was pending and a decision
imminent. An examination of the record shows that all of the docu-
ments were sent to Smith by mail and that none were returned except
the Roseboro notice which came back marked"RTS rel." We cannot
tell for certain why the Roseboro notice was returned, and there is the
distinct possibility that Smith never knew of it. The authority of the
district court to enter judgment would be dependent upon service of
the Roseboro notice upon Smith. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309,
310 (4th Cir. 1975). Therefore, we must remand the case for the dis-
trict court to make appropriate factual findings as to whether there
was proper service of the relevant filings upon Smith and to proceed
thereafter in accordance with those findings. We deny Smith's
motions for production of documents and for an order compelling the
clerk of court to comply with his motion for discovery. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the written material before the court, and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED.

                    2