US v. Michael Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00320-WO-1,1:12-cv-00341-WO-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999751656]. Mailed to: Michael Davis. [15-7514]

Appeal: 15-7514

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7514

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL FREDDIE DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00320-WO-1; 1:12-cv-00341WO-JEP)

Submitted:

February 2, 2016

Decided:

February 9, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Freddie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7514

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Freddie Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s
judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss Davis’ 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion.

The district court has requested that

this case be remanded so that the district court may consider
Davis’

timely

extension

of

recommendation.

filed,
time

but
to

belatedly

file

received,

objections

to

request
the

for

report

an
and

The district court would then consider any of

Davis’ timely filed objections.

We grant the district court’s

request and remand for that purpose.

See Fobian v. Storage

Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 1999).

After the district

court issues its order, if still dissatisfied Davis may appeal
that

determination

to

this

court.

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.
REMANDED

2