James Curry v. United States Supreme Court

Fourth Circuit

James Curry v. United States Supreme Court

688 F. App'x 194

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 3, 2017

Docket16-7764

StatusUnpublished

This text of 688 F. App'x 194 (James Curry v. United States Supreme Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Curry v. United States Supreme Court, 688 F. App'x 194 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James B. Curry appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). In its order, the district court stated that Curry had filed no objections to the report and recommendation despite having been warned of the consequences of failing to object. On appeal, Curry claims that he did not receive the report and recommenda *195 tion, and he provides documentary support for his claim.

A party who fails to object in writing 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 those determinations on appeal. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). The waiver is a result of procedural default and does not affect jurisdiction. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). 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 apply. Wright, 766 F.2d at 845-46.

From the record presented, we cannot conclusively determine whether Curry received a copy of the report and recommendation. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand for the district court to make this determination in the first instance. Should the district court ■ find Curry’s claim to be credible, it-should provide him with a copy of the report and recommendation and afford him an opportunity to object. If, however, the court finds that Curry did receive the report and recommendation, it may reenter its original order, with any necessary modifications.

We deny Curry’s motions for default judgment and to “expedite service.” 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James B. Curry appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). In its order, the district court stated that Curry had filed no objections to the report and recommendation despite having been warned of the consequences of failing to object. On appeal, Curry claims that he did not receive the report and recommenda *195 tion, and he provides documentary support for his claim.

A party who fails to object in writing 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 those determinations on appeal. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). The waiver is a result of procedural default and does not affect jurisdiction. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). 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 apply. Wright, 766 F.2d at 845-46.

From the record presented, we cannot conclusively determine whether Curry received a copy of the report and recommendation. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand for the district court to make this determination in the first instance. Should the district court ■ find Curry’s claim to be credible, it-should provide him with a copy of the report and recommendation and afford him an opportunity to object. If, however, the court finds that Curry did receive the report and recommendation, it may reenter its original order, with any necessary modifications.

We deny Curry’s motions for default judgment and to “expedite service.” 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 F. App'x 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-curry-v-united-states-supreme-court-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack