Jarrel Johnson v. Marlboro County Detention Center ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6617 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6617
JARREL LEE JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MARLBORO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (5:22-cv-03170-RBH)
Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 3, 2023
Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jarrel Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6617 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Jarrel Lee Johnson, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
and judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be
denied and advised Johnson that failure to file timely, specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. On April 10, 2023, the district court noted that Johnson failed to file
timely objections, adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed the § 2241
petition without prejudice. Johnson filed a letter docketed as a reply on April 28, 2023,
claiming that he did respond to the report and recommendation. The court has taken no
action in response to the reply. “‘[I]f a post-judgment motion is [timely] filed . . . and calls
into question the correctness of that judgment it should be treated as a motion under [Fed.
R. Civ. P.] 59(e), however it may be formally styled.’” MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S.
Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809
(4th Cir. 1978)). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28
days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Thus, Johnson’s reply is properly
construed as a timely-filed Rule 59(e) motion.
The timely filing of a Rule 59(e) motion tolls the appeal period until the motion is
resolved. A notice of appeal filed before the district court resolves the Rule 59(e) motion
becomes effective after the motion is resolved. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (B)(i).
Accordingly, we order a limited remand directing the district court to docket Johnson’s
reply as a Rule 59(e) motion and to consider the motion on its merits. If either party is
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6617 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
dissatisfied after the district court disposes of the Rule 59(e) motion and timely files a
notice of appeal or amends its current notice, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), any appeal
from the district court’s final order will be consolidated with this appeal. Regardless of the
outcome of the Rule 59(e) motion, the record, as supplemented, will be returned to this
court for further consideration.
In ordering this limited remand, we express no opinion as to the merits of the
motion. 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.
REMANDED
3