Reece Gene Mullins v. OFFICER RINER, Duffield Regional Jail Authority; OFFICER WHEALE

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6878
REECE GENE MULLINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER RINER, Duffield Regional Jail Authority; OFFICER WHEALE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, Duffield VA,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00149-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: March 14, 2025 Decided: April 2, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reece Gene Mullins, Appellant Pro Se.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Reece Gene Mullins appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on the ground that Mullins failed to file any response to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within the 21-day period the court provided to
do so. The district court, however, did not address a letter from Mullins dated August 14,
2024, and filed within the time set by the court. On appeal, Mullins contends that the letter
was his response and that he believed his requests in that letter, including requests for an
extension of time to respond and for appointment of counsel, adequately expressed his
interest in continuing the case. Mullins expressed the same sentiment in his notice of
appeal.
We agree. See Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating that this
court liberally construes pro se filings). Because the district court received Mullins’s
August 14 letter within the 21-day period, and because that letter was responsive to the
district court’s order to respond to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, we vacate the district
court’s dismissal order and remand the case for the district court to consider Mullins’s letter
in the first instance. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of Mullins’s claims.
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.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --