Reece Mullins v. Riner

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 24-6878
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6878 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6878

REECE GENE MULLINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER RINER, Duffield Regional Jail Authority; OFFICER WHEALE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SOUTHWEST REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, Duffield VA,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00149-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: March 14, 2025 Decided: April 2, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reece Gene Mullins, Appellant Pro Se. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6878 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6878 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Reece Gene Mullins appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on the ground that Mullins failed to file any response to

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within the 21-day period the court provided to

do so. The district court, however, did not address a letter from Mullins dated August 14,

2024, and filed within the time set by the court. On appeal, Mullins contends that the letter

was his response and that he believed his requests in that letter, including requests for an

extension of time to respond and for appointment of counsel, adequately expressed his

interest in continuing the case. Mullins expressed the same sentiment in his notice of

appeal.

We agree. See Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating that this

court liberally construes pro se filings). Because the district court received Mullins’s

August 14 letter within the 21-day period, and because that letter was responsive to the

district court’s order to respond to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, we vacate the district

court’s dismissal order and remand the case for the district court to consider Mullins’s letter

in the first instance. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of Mullins’s claims.

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