Devontay D. Myles v. Sgt. Edwards; C/o Campbell; Lt. James Williams; Sgt. Tyriek Taylor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7284
DEVONTAY D. MYLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. EDWARDS; C/O CAMPBELL; LT. JAMES WILLIAMS; SGT. TYRIEK
TAYLOR,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MS. BENNETT, Asst. Superintendent,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-ct-03128-D)
Submitted: July 23, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Devontay D. Myles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Devontay D. Myles appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissing Myles’ amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.
Prior to dismissing the amended complaint, the district court referred the case to the
magistrate judge for a settlement conference on Myles’ excessive force claim. But when
Myles failed to respond to the magistrate judge’s scheduling order and did not attend the
show cause hearing, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the amended complaint
for failure to prosecute and comply with the court’s orders. Myles did not object to the
magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation, thereby endangering appellate
review of the dismissal order. See Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 103
(4th Cir. 2020); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985).
On appeal, however, Myles suggested that he missed the relevant deadlines because
he was released from the hospital on October 15, 2022, after receiving treatment for a life-
threatening condition. Because the record did not reveal whether Myles was incapacitated
when he failed to meet those deadlines, we remanded the case to the district court for the
limited purpose of allowing the court to determine whether Myles had legitimate grounds
for an extension of any of the deadlines. We directed the district court to return the record,
as supplemented, after it rendered its findings.
On remand, the district court administratively reopened Myles’ case and ordered
Myles to explain in detail why he was unable to respond to the magistrate judge’s orders
and appear at the show cause hearing. After reviewing Myles’ response, the district court
concluded that Myles had legitimate grounds for an extension of the deadlines and returned

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the case to the magistrate judge for a settlement conference. Most recently, when the
settlement negotiations reached an impasse, the district court directed the Attorney General
to identify three proposed trial dates.
By reopening the case and then referring the case to the magistrate judge for a
settlement conference, the district court effectively vacated its order dismissing Myles’
amended § 1983 complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot Myles’ appeal of that now-
vacated order. 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --