Jacob Baker v. Commissioner of Social Securit

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-00113-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999395588]. Mailed to: Baker. [14-1243]

Appeal: 14-1243

Doc: 4

Filed: 07/15/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1243

JACOB BAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:14-cv-00113-JMC)

Submitted:

July 11, 2014

Decided:

July 15, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacob Baker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1243

Doc: 4

Filed: 07/15/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jacob Baker appeals from the district court’s order
accepting

the

recommendation

dismissing his civil action.
issued

its

district

dismissal

court

of

magistrate

judge

and

Two days after the district court

order,

asserting

the

Baker

that

he

filed

did

not

a

letter

timely

with

the

receive

the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and, thus, he did
not

have

the

district

opportunity

court

acted

to

file

upon

objections.

Baker’s

filing,

Before
Baker

the
filed

correspondence with this court, which was construed as a notice
of appeal.
The

timely

filing

of

objections

is

necessary

to

preserve appellate review of a district court’s order adopting
the recommendation.
Cir. 1985).

See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th

If Baker did not timely receive the report and

recommendation, he was thereby prevented from obtaining de novo
review

of

the

recommendation

by

an

Article

III

judge.

See

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982).
In light of Baker’s assertion that he did not timely
receive the report and recommendation, we remand the case to the
district

court

correspondence

so
as

it
a

may
Fed.

construe
R.

Civ.

reconsideration of the dismissal order.

the
P.

59(e)

21,

motion

2014
for

We express no opinion

as to whether reconsideration is warranted.
2

February

We dispense with

Appeal: 14-1243

oral

Doc: 4

argument

adequately

Filed: 07/15/2014

because

presented

in

the
the

Pg: 3 of 3

facts

and

materials

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
REMANDED

3