Court Opinion

ID: 9895151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:45.568325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:21.871634
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6617      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-6617

        JARREL LEE JOHNSON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN MARLBORO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (5:22-cv-03170-RBH)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jarrel Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6617       Doc: 10          Filed: 11/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jarrel Lee Johnson, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

        and judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on

        Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be

        denied and advised Johnson that failure to file timely, specific objections to this

        recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

        recommendation. On April 10, 2023, the district court noted that Johnson failed to file

        timely objections, adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed the § 2241

        petition without prejudice. Johnson filed a letter docketed as a reply on April 28, 2023,

        claiming that he did respond to the report and recommendation. The court has taken no

        action in response to the reply. “‘[I]f a post-judgment motion is [timely] filed . . . and calls

        into question the correctness of that judgment it should be treated as a motion under [Fed.

        R. Civ. P.] 59(e), however it may be formally styled.’” MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S.

        Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809

        (4th Cir. 1978)). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28

        days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Thus, Johnson’s reply is properly

        construed as a timely-filed Rule 59(e) motion.

               The timely filing of a Rule 59(e) motion tolls the appeal period until the motion is

        resolved. A notice of appeal filed before the district court resolves the Rule 59(e) motion

        becomes effective after the motion is resolved. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (B)(i).

        Accordingly, we order a limited remand directing the district court to docket Johnson’s

        reply as a Rule 59(e) motion and to consider the motion on its merits. If either party is

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6617         Doc: 10       Filed: 11/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        dissatisfied after the district court disposes of the Rule 59(e) motion and timely files a

        notice of appeal or amends its current notice, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), any appeal

        from the district court’s final order will be consolidated with this appeal. Regardless of the

        outcome of the Rule 59(e) motion, the record, as supplemented, will be returned to this

        court for further consideration.

               In ordering this limited remand, we express no opinion as to the merits of the

        motion. 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.

                                                                                       REMANDED

                                                      3