Court Opinion

ID: 9939375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 21:00:48.459188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:14.191047
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6594      Doc: 18         Filed: 02/08/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6594

        JAMES A. MARTIN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN OF FCI HAZELTON AND UNKNOWNS; WARDEN OF USP HAZELTON
        AND UNKNOWNS,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00013-GMG-RWT)

        Submitted: January 18, 2024                                       Decided: February 8, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James A. Martin, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6594      Doc: 18          Filed: 02/08/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               James A. Martin, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing for

        failure to prosecute Martin’s action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

        of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We vacate and remand.

               On March 15, 2022, the magistrate judge issued an order directing Martin to pay a

        partial initial filing fee and warning that failure to pay the fee within 28 days could result

        in dismissal of his action without prejudice. Martin did not pay the filing fee by the

        deadline, prompting the district court to dismiss Martin’s action on the ground that he had

        failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In its

        dismissal order, the district court noted that, according to a return receipt, Martin received

        the magistrate judge’s order regarding the filing fee on March 21. However, in his notice

        of appeal, and again on appeal, Martin claimed that he never received the magistrate

        judge’s order. Further, the return receipt cited by the district court reflects that Martin’s

        prison facility received the magistrate judge’s order, but it does not indicate whether prison

        staff forwarded the order to Martin.

               Because the district court did not have an opportunity to resolve the factual question

        of whether Martin received timely notice of the magistrate judge’s order, we are unable to

        determine whether the court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the action under

        Rule 41(b). See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 620, 625 (4th Cir. 2019) (providing

        standard of review and listing factors relevant to Rule 41(b) dismissal). Accordingly, we

        deny Martin’s pending motions, vacate the district court’s order, and remand for further

        proceedings.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6594         Doc: 18    Filed: 02/08/2024   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