Court Opinion

ID: 9555415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 21:00:40.988546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:05.925629
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7094      Doc: 16         Filed: 08/10/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7094

        JAMES A. MARTIN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00022-JPB)

        Submitted: July 31, 2023                                          Decided: August 10, 2023

        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        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-7094       Doc: 16         Filed: 08/10/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               James A. Martin appeals the district court’s orders adopting the recommendation of

        the magistrate judge and dismissing Martin’s action filed under the Federal Tort Claims

        Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (FTCA). The district court referred this case to a

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

        recommended that Martin’s FTCA action be dismissed for failure to exhaust in part

        because he failed to administratively claim a sum certain in any of his alleged

        administrative remedies filings.      See Ahmed v. United States, 30 F.3d 514, 516

        (4th Cir. 1994) (noting FTCA claimant must present a claim for money damages in a sum

        certain to the appropriate agency before filing suit). The magistrate judge advised Martin

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

        based on the recommendation. Martin filed objections, but the district court determined

        that his objections were untimely and nonspecific, adopted the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation, and dismissed Martin’s FTCA action. The record discloses, however,

        that Martin timely and specifically objected to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that he

        failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. * Further, it is unclear whether the district

        court reviewed de novo the magistrate judge’s report, as required when a party files timely

               *
                 Martin averred that he gave his objections to prison staff on August 15, 2022,
        within the deadline for filing objections. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)
        (deeming document filed when given to prison officials for mailing); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
        Additionally, Martin’s assertion that he filed two standard Bureau of Prison tort claim
        forms, which contain a space for claiming a sum certain, was sufficient to alert the district
        court that he disputed the magistrate judge’s conclusion that he failed to administratively
        claim a sum certain.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7094      Doc: 16         Filed: 08/10/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        and specific objections. See United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181

        (4th Cir. 2019) (noting district court must review de novo those portions of the magistrate

        judge’s report to which timely, specific objections are made). Accordingly, we vacate the

        district court’s final order and remand for consideration of Martin’s timely objections. We

        deny Martin’s motions for appointment of a special master and a change of venue. 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