Clarence Austin Harrison v. Tim Riley

UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge
recommended that Harrison’s § 2254 petition be denied. 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 of 3 --

3
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --