UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR MCDORN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JENNINGS MCABEE; HERBERT B.
No. 95-8526
LONG; JULIUS H. BAGGETT; FRANK
HARRISON; MCABEE BUILDING
SUPPLY, INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-95-3555-19-BD)
Submitted: April 15, 1996
Decided: May 6, 1996
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Arthur McDorn Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Williams appeals from the district court's order granting
summary judgment to Defendants on his 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (1988)
civil complaint. The district court awarded summary judgment upon
the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Although we vacate the
district court's order and remand for further proceedings, we express
no opinion regarding the merits of this action.
The district court denied Williams's request for an extension to file
objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, but
Williams managed to file timely objections nevertheless. Unfortu-
nately, the district court did not consider Williams's objections
because the court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation
before the time for filing objections had expired and there is no men-
tion of Williams's timely objections in the district court's opinion.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1988), the district court is obligated
to review de novo those portions of the magistrate judge's report to
which objections are filed.1 The district court's order, however, does
not state that it conducted a review of the record as to those objections
or made a decision on the disputed issues de novo. Because Williams
made timely objections to the magistrate judge's factual findings, the
district court's error was not harmless.2
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand the
matter for the district court to conduct the required de novo review
and issue a decision, or state that it conducted such review before ren-
dering its previous decision. We dispense with oral argument because
_________________________________________________________________
1 See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
467 U.S. 1208 (1984).
2 Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3