Pierce v. Jones ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RICKY A. PIERCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 95-6602
PEGGY JONES; DEBORAH ADLES,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.
(CA-94-68-5-BO)
Submitted: November 30, 1995
Decided: January 3, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Ricky A. Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Clark Dalton, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Caro-
lina, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Pierce appeals from the district court's order granting sum-
mary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action.
The district court awarded summary judgment upon recommendation
by a magistrate judge. Although we express no opinion as to the ulti-
mate success of Appellant's claims, we vacate the district court's
order and remand for further proceedings.
Pierce filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation. Apparently, these objections were not brought to
the attention of the district court. The court's order refers to Defen-
dants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, Pierce's motions
to transmit the record and to compel, and to the magistrate judge's
report. However, there is no mention of Appellant's objections.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (1988), the district court is obligated
to review de novo those portions of the magistrate judge's report to
which objections are filed. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d
91, 93 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). The district
court's order, however, does not state whether it conducted a review
of the record as to those objections or made a decision on the disputed
issues de novo. Because Pierce made specific, timely objections to the
magistrate judge's factual findings, the district court's error was not
harmless. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Therefore, we vacate the district court's order and remand the mat-
ter for the district court to conduct the required de novo review and
issue a decision or to state that it conducted such review before ren-
dering its previous decision. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2