Collins v. Evatt ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LEE DAVID COLLINS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PARKER EVATT, Commissioner;
No. 95-7499
DAVID L. BARTLES, Director;
ROBERT W. DONLIN, Deputy
Regional Administrator, South
Carolina Department of Corrections,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-94-2426-3-OBD)
Submitted: February 13, 1996
Decided: February 28, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Lee David Collins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Vinton DeVane Lide,
Michael Stephen Pauley, LIDE, MONTGOMERY, POTTS &
MEDLOCK, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Lee David Collins appeals from the district court's order granting
Appellees' motion for summary judgment. The district court granted
the motion upon recommendation by a magistrate judge. Although we
express no opinion as to the ultimate success of Collins's claims, we
vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings.
Collins noted specific, timely objections to the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be
granted. The district court was required to review the disputed issues
de novo. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1) (West 1993). Reliance upon the
magistrate judge's summary of the record is insufficient in this
regard. Thus, the district court was required to review the entire
record in the case. See Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 76 (4th Cir.
1985); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 48 n.1 (4th Cir. 1982).
It is unclear from the district court's order whether a de novo
review was indeed conducted. Accordingly, we vacate the decision
below and remand for the district court to state that it conducted a de
novo review if it previously did, or to review the magistrate judge's
report, the objections, and the record under the proper standard if it
has not already done so. 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
2