United States of America v. Lloyd B. Carr

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7866
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LLOYD B. CARR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Parkersburg. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (6:12-cr-00210-1; 2:18-cv-01188)
Submitted: May 31, 2022 Decided: June 6, 2022
Before AGEE, WYNN, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lloyd B. Carr, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd B. Carr appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion to extend
the time for filing objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, finding that Carr
failed to file timely objections, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and
dismissing without prejudice as untimely Carr’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. On appeal, Carr
asserts that the district court erred by denying his motion to extend the time to file
objections—in which he presented grounds for applying equitable tolling of the limitations
period, as directed by the magistrate judge in accordance with Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701
(4th Cir. 2002)—and he reiterates the claims raised in his § 2255 motion. We conclude
that a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the denial of the motion to extend
the time to file objections, see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009), and that the
district court should have construed Carr’s second request for an extension of time as his
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the § 2255 motion as
untimely, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (stating that pro se filings should
be liberally construed).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the district court to
review de novo Carr’s timely filed objections. We also deny as unnecessary a certificate
of appealability and express no opinion regarding the ultimate disposition of Carr’s § 2255
motion. 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

-- 2 of 2 --