Court Opinion

ID: 9402042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 21:00:46.330569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.042233
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7546      Doc: 8         Filed: 06/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7546

        STEPHEN K. HARRIS,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        R. M. WOLFE, Warden,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00052-JPB)

        Submitted: August 31, 2022                                          Decided: June 13, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Stephen K. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7546        Doc: 8        Filed: 06/13/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Stephen K. Harris, a District of Columbia prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court referred this case to a

        magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).                 The magistrate judge

        recommended granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss Harris’s petition and advised

        Harris that failure to file timely objections could waive appellate review of a district court’s

        order based on the recommendation. On October 5, 2021, the district court determined that

        no objections had been filed. Nonetheless, it said that it had conducted a de novo review

        of the record, and it accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed

        Harris’s petition.

               But the record discloses that Harris submitted objections to the district court and

        dated them October 1, 2021, 14 days after the magistrate judge’s report was served to his

        Bureau of Prisons facility and thus within the deadline for timely objections. See 28 U.S.C.

        § 636(b)(1)(C). Harris’s objections were postmarked on October 4, 2021, however, and

        his certificate of service was not signed. Therefore, it is not clear whether Harris’s

        objections were timely under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (deeming

        document filed when given to prison officials for mailing). Accordingly, we vacate the

        district court’s order and remand for the district court to decide whether Harris’s objections

        were timely filed. If the district court finds that Harris’s objections were timely filed, then

        the court should review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in light of

        Harris’s objections. We express no opinion on the merits of Harris’s claims.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7546         Doc: 8    Filed: 06/13/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

              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