Roger L. Crawford, MSGT USAF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. West Virginia Governor's Office, 935 F.2d 1285 (4th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseAppeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden, II, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-106-5; CA-90-1080-5; CA-90-1113-5; CA-90-1114-5; CA-90-1156-5; CA-90-1166-5)
Roger L. Crawford, appellant pro se.
Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, W.Va., for appellees.
S.D.W.Va.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Roger L. Crawford appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit.1 Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court with one modification. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations that Crawford's actions be dismissed without prejudice, yet the final orders were silent on this point, indicating dismissal with prejudice. To clarify the matter, we modify the judgments to expressly reflect that Crawford's actions were dismissed without prejudice. Crawford v. West Virginia Governor's Office, CA-91-106-5 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 1, 1991); Crawford v. Caperton, CA-90-1080-5 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 21, 1991); Crawford v. Reagan, CA-90-1113-5 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 21, 1991); Crawford v. Byrd, CA-90-1114-5 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 21, 1991); Crawford v. Summers County Hospital, CA-90-1156-5 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 21, 1991; Crawford v. Citizens of the United States, CA-90-1166-5 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 21, 1991). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
The magistrate judge told Crawford he could object to the reports and recommendations within 13 days. The district court, in each case except No. 91-3044, adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations and dismissed the actions after a de novo review on the 13th day after the filing date of the reports and recommendations
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) instructs that when the period of time prescribed by a federal statute or rule is less than 11 days, Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded in the time computation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b) both provide that a party may object to a magistrate judge's report within ten days.
Crawford served objections (in all but Nos. 91-3045 and 91-3046) on the 14th day after the magistrate judge filed his report but within the ten-day limit as computed under Rule 6(a). The district court therefore dismissed Crawford's complaints prematurely. However, the determination that Crawford's claims are frivolous is a question of law and we find that the error by the district court in this regard was harmless because Crawford's claims are frivolous.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
