Court Opinion

ID: 9831355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:01:04.878694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.855590
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6090      Doc: 17         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6090

        CHRISTOPHER L. HAMPTON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        KENNETH NELSON, Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
        Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01377-MGL)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                           Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher L. Hampton, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6090       Doc: 17          Filed: 08/31/2023       Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher Hampton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

        28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court denied relief after adopting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation and granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The

        court determined that Hampton’s timely filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report

        and recommendation were nonspecific, and therefore the court did not conduct a de novo

        review of Hampton’s objections. See United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177,

        181 (4th Cir. 2019) (requiring de novo review of portions of the report to which specific

        objections are made). However, our review of Hampton’s objections shows that they were

        specific enough to warrant de novo review by the district court. See Osmon v. United

        States, 66 F.4th 144, 146 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[A] party wishing to avail itself of its right to

        de novo review must be sufficiently specific to focus the district court’s attention on the

        factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” (internal quotation marks omitted));

        Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 461 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[A]n objection which merely

        restate[s] . . . the claims [is] sufficiently specific because it alert[s] the district court that

        the litigant believed the magistrate judge erred in recommending dismissal of those

        claims.” (cleaned up)).

               Because the district court did not conduct a de novo review, we grant Hampton’s

        motion for a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s order, and remand for

        further proceedings. See Elijah, 66 F.4th at 461; De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d at 181 (“As

        the court of appeals, . . . we generally don’t reach factual or legal questions in a magistrate

        judge’s report that were not first subject to de novo review by the district court.”). We

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6090      Doc: 17        Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        deny Hampton’s motions to amend the caption and to appoint counsel. 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.

                                                                   VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                    3