Wade v. Messer ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    LAVERNE WADE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    No. 99-1482
    FRANCES MESSER; CARVER LIVING
    CENTER,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
    (CA-98-120-1)
    Submitted: January 11, 2000
    Decided: April 28, 2000
    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
    and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Laverne Wade, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Lyon Maultsby, SMITH,
    HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellees.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Laverne Wade appeals the district court's order granting
    summary judgment to Appellees in her civil action in which she
    alleged discriminatory discharge. Wade's case was referred to a mag-
    istrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (1994). The magis-
    trate judge recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor
    of Appellees on all claims. Noting that no objections had been filed,
    the district court declined to make a de novo review, granted sum-
    mary judgment to Appellees, and dismissed the action based upon the
    magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district court
    record, however, does not disclose whether a copy of the report and
    recommendation was ever sent to the parties or to their counsel.
    Instead, it appears that the report and recommendation and notice
    regarding the timely filing of objections were mailed to attorneys who
    are not attorneys of record for any of the parties in this case.
    Because it is unclear from the record whether the magistrate
    judge's report and recommendation and notice were sent to Wade or
    to her attorney, we vacate the district court's order adopting the mag-
    istrate judge's report and recommendation and remand to the district
    court for further proceedings. We direct that, on remand, the district
    court determine whether the magistrate judge's report and recommen-
    dation and notice were sent to counsel of record and to Wade. If the
    district court determines the appropriate mailing did not occur, we
    further direct the court to mail a copy of the magistrate judge's report
    and recommendation with appropriate notice regarding objections
    thereto to counsel of record and to Wade to permit the parties to file
    timely objections if they so desire and for further proceedings as
    appropriate.* We express no opinion as to the merit of Wade's
    _________________________________________________________________
    *We note that Wade is proceeding pro se on appeal but was repre-
    sented by counsel below.
    2
    claims. We deny Wade's motion for appointment of counsel and deny
    as moot the Appellees' motion to strike Wade's reply brief and
    Wade's motion in opposition. We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1482

Filed Date: 4/28/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014