United States v. Curtis Brooks

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-6836
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6836 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6836

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CURTIS SHAWN BROOKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00393-LCB-1; 1:21-cv- 00489-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: June 24, 2025 Decided: July 23, 2025

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Shawn Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6836 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Shawn Brooks appeals the district court’s judgment denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The final order in a § 2255 proceeding is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).

Here, because Brooks filed timely and sufficiently specific objections to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation, and because the record does not establish that the

district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report, we grant a

certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s judgment, and remand for further

proceedings.

The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[magistrate judge’s] report . . . or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). To receive de novo review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation and

preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation, a party must file timely,

specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report. Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 459-

60 (4th Cir. 2023); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017). To qualify as timely,

a party’s objections generally must be filed within 14 days of service of the magistrate

judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To qualify as specific, a party’s objections to a

magistrate judge’s recommendations must “reasonably . . . alert the district court of the true

ground for the objection.” Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460 (internal quotation marks omitted). We

review the timeliness and specificity of a party’s objections de novo. Id. at 461. A district

court’s failure to apply the proper de novo standard of review warrants vacatur and remand.

See United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6836 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Our review of the record reveals that Brooks submitted timely and specific

objections that challenged multiple of the magistrate judge’s findings regarding Brooks’s

ineffective assistance of counsel claims, including those raised in his motions to amend his

§ 2255 motion. As such, the district court was required to review de novo the portions of

the magistrate judge’s report to which those objections were made. Elijah, 66 F.4th at 459;

De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d at 181. The district court’s judgment denying Brooks’s § 2255

motion refers to an order “filed contemporaneously” with the judgment, but that order does

not appear in the record or on the district court’s docket; thus, the record does not establish

that the court conducted the requisite de novo review.

We therefore deny Brooks’s motion for § 2255 relief that he filed in this Court, grant

a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s judgment, and remand with

instructions for the court to review de novo the portion of the report and recommendation

to which objections were made. In doing so, we express no opinion on the merits of the

objections, only that they were timely and specific and thus required the district court to

engage in de novo review.

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