Court Opinion

ID: 9369577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 14:01:38.716363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.136691
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1151      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1151

        JOHN OSBORNE CRANDELL, III,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        U.S. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:21-cv-00016-TSK-MJA)

        Submitted: January 26, 2023                                       Decided: February 7, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Osborne Crandell, III, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1151       Doc: 9         Filed: 02/07/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               John Osborne Crandell, III, appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation and dismissing with prejudice his civil action. Because the

        district court failed to apply the proper standard in reviewing the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

               A district court must review de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s

        recommendation to which specific objections are made. United States v. De Leon-Ramirez,

        925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019); see United States v. George, 971 F.2d 1113, 1118 (4th

        Cir. 1992) (“By definition, de novo review entails consideration of an issue as if it had not

        been decided previously.”). To qualify as specific, a party’s objections must “reasonably

        . . . alert the district court of the true ground[s] for the objection[s].” Martin v. Duffy, 858

        F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). This requirement

        “train[s] the attention of both the district court and the court of appeals upon only those

        issues that remain in dispute after the magistrate judge has made findings and

        recommendations.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). When

        a district court fails to apply the proper standard of review to a magistrate judge’s

        recommendation, a remand is warranted. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d at 181.

               In these proceedings, Crandell sought an order from the district court directing the

        U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) to produce the case file for

        Taylor v. Brown, No. 2:93-cv-00093-REM (N.D.W. Va.).                   The magistrate judge

        recommended dismissing Crandell’s civil action for failure to state a claim, or in the

        alternative, awarding summary judgment to NARA based on NARA’s representation that

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1151      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/07/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        the case file had been destroyed. * As relevant here, Crandell objected to the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation and asserted that, pursuant to NARA’s Records Disposition

        Schedule for district court case files, NARA was required to permanently retain the file for

        Taylor v. Brown. Crandell also supplied evidence to support his assertion. The district

        court deemed Crandell’s objections nonspecific and reviewed the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation for clear error only. Discerning no clear error, the district court adopted

        the recommendation and dismissed with prejudice Crandell’s action. The district court did

        not address Crandell’s assertion and evidence related to the Records Disposition Schedule.

               Having reviewed Crandell’s objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation,

        we disagree with the district court’s characterization of them as nonspecific. Crandell

        reasonably alerted the district court to his disagreement with the magistrate judge’s

        determination that the case file had been destroyed and explained that disagreement with

        citations to record evidence. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245. We are therefore satisfied that

        the district court was obliged to review de novo that aspect of the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation.

               Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the district court to

        apply the proper standard of review to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. We express

        no opinion on the ultimate merits of Crandell’s objections. We dispense with oral argument

               *
                  The magistrate judge also determined that Crandell had failed to exhaust his
        administrative remedies before pursuing this action. But the district court’s dismissal with
        prejudice causes us to question whether the court relied on that determination in resolving
        this case. See Moss v. Harwood, 19 F.4th 614, 623 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021).

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1151      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/07/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        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

                                                     4