United States v. Gray

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7914
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES GRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-00-186; CA-02-1355)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: October 13, 2005
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Gray appeals the district court’s orders accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, denying a motion for certificate of
appealability, and denying his subsequent motion for
reconsideration. Gray maintains on appeal, as he did below, that
he never received the magistrate judge’s May 14, 2003 Proposed
Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”).*
A party who fails to object in writing within ten days to
a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law is not entitled to de novo review of the magistrate judge’s
determinations and is barred from contesting these determinations
on appeal. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.
1985). However, the waiver of appellate rights for failing to
object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is not a
jurisdictional requirement. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d
91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1984). Consequently, when a litigant is
proceeding pro se, he must be given fair notice of the consequences
of failing to object before a procedural default will result.
Wright, 766 F.2d at 846.
*
On remand from this court, the district court granted Gray’s
motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6), finding that Gray did not receive timely notice of the
district court’s judgment order.
- 2 -
When objections to a magistrate judge’s determinations
have been filed, de novo review by an Article III judge is not only
required by statute, Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th
Cir. 1982), it is indispensable to the constitutionality of the
Magistrate Judge’s Act. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S.
667, 681-82 (1980). If Gray’s contentions are true, he timely
received neither the PF&R nor notice of the consequences of failing
to object to the report.
Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability,
vacate the order of the district court, and remand so that the
district court can determine whether Gray timely received adequate
notice of the PF&R. If the district court determines that the PF&R
was not timely received by Gray, the court should serve Gray with
a copy of the PF&R, permit Gray to file objections and then conduct
the requisite review. Should the court find that Gray did timely
receive the PF&R and the attendant notice, it should reinstate its
dismissal of the § 2255 motion. 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 -