CarMax, Inc. v. Montgomery Sibley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00611-MHL-DJN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000332046].. [18-1261]

Appeal: 18-1261

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/19/2018

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1261

CARMAX, INC.; CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00611-MHL-DJN)

Submitted: July 16, 2018

Decided: July 19, 2018

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Montgomery B. Sibley, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Diane Hoffmeister, Alan Durrum
Wingfield, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1261

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/19/2018

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Carmax, Inc. and Carmax Auto Superstores, Incorporated (jointly hereinafter,
“Carmax”) brought a defamation against Montgomery Blair Sibley in state court. Sibley
removed the action to federal court. Finding that there was no basis for federal subject
matter jurisdiction, the district court subsequently remanded the case to state court but
permitted Carmax to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 17, 2017, the
magistrate judge issued a report recommending awarding attorneys’ fees to Carmax, with
notice that objections were to be filed within 14 days after service of the report. On May
12, 2017, the district court awarded attorneys’ fees to Carmax, adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and noting that neither party had objected to the report. Sibley
filed a motion to vacate the district court’s order, arguing that he had not received a copy
of the magistrate judge’s report. The district court denied the motion. Sibley timely
appealed, arguing that he was deprived of the opportunity to file objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and that the district court lacked personal
jurisdiction over him. 1
A litigant who fails to timely object in writing to a magistrate judge’s proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law is not entitled to de novo review of the magistrate
judge’s determinations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012), and is barred from contesting

1

We conclude that Sibley forfeited his objections to personal jurisdiction by
failing to timely raise them in the district court. Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie
des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703-04 (1982); Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
814 F.3d 619, 625 (2d Cir. 2016).

2

Appeal: 18-1261

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/19/2018

Pg: 3 of 4

those determinations on appeal. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
However, this waiver is a prudential rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1984). Consequently, when a litigant is
proceeding pro se, this court has held that he must be given fair notice of the
consequences before such a procedural default will result. Wright, 766 F.2d at 846.
When objections to a magistrate judge’s determination have been filed, de novo review
by an Article III judge is not only required by statute, Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44,
47-48 (4th Cir. 1982), but has been held indispensable to the constitutionality of the
Magistrate Judge’s Act. United States vs. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 681-82 (1980).
The record supports Sibley’s claim that he did not receive the magistrate judge’s
report from the district court. The entries on the district court’s docket reflect that copies
of all orders in the district court were sent to Sibley, but the entry for the magistrate
judge’s report contains no such notation. Sibley stated under penalty of perjury that he
did not receive a copy of the report from the court. Because it appears that Sibley did not
receive the report or notice of the consequences of failing to object to the report, we are
constrained to return the case to the district court so that Sibley can be provided with a
copy of the report and notice of the need to file timely and specific objections.
Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district court’s order denying Sibley’s motion
to vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2

2

In the same order, the district court granted Carmax’s motion to compel Sibley
to comply with his discovery obligations. On appeal, Sibley does not raise any claims
specifically challenging the portion of the order granting the motion to compel.
(Continued)
3

Appeal: 18-1261

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/19/2018

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

Therefore, he has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the district court’s order.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in informal brief).

4