The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6968
DOMMERNICK BROWN, United States of America, Suis Juris- Pro
Se and Pro Se Coach-In Forma Pauperis and Supporter of The
Second Coming of Jesus Christ Super-Star The Messiah and
Super-Star-and The Version of The New World Order #777
ALMIGHTY-GODS New World Order 777,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HON. WARDEN B. R. JETT, Warden of the Federal Medical
Center (located in Rochester, Minnesota),
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:15-cv-01983-TLW)
Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 6, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dommernick Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dommernick Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order dimissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition
without prejudice. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
The magistrate judge recommended that the § 2241 petition be
dismissed without prejudice and advised Brown that failure to
file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. The district court found that no objections
were filed and dismissed the § 2241 petition. The record
discloses, however, that Brown filed timely objections to the
magistrate judge’s report. The objections were mistakenly
construed as a notice of appeal of the district court’s order
because they were received after entry of that order.
We accordingly vacate the district court’s order and remand
for consideration of Brown’s timely objections. * We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
We have construed Brown’s informal brief as a timely
notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Smith v.
Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992).
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3