Clarence Harrison v. Tim Riley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999697317-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cv-03801-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999791563].. [15-7606]

Appeal: 15-7606

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7606

CLARENCE AUSTIN HARRISON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TIM RILEY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-03801-BHH)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

April 8, 2016

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Austin Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7606

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clarence Austin Harrison appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

recommended

§

that

636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

Harrison’s

2254

§

The

petition

magistrate
be

denied.

judge
The

magistrate judge advised Harrison that failure to file timely,
specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
On September 11, 2015, the district court determined that no
objections had been filed and, after reviewing the matter, adopted
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Harrison’s § 2254
petition.

The record discloses, however, that Harrison timely

filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report. *
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
vacate the district court’s order, and remand for consideration of
Harrison’s timely objections.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

*

The due date for filing objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation was September 7, 2015, a federal holiday.
Harrison’s objections were postmarked at the prison facility on
September 8, 2015, and therefore deemed timely filed.
See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (deeming document filed when
given to prison officials for mailing); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)
(excluding intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays
from computation of time).
2

Appeal: 15-7606

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3