United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Albert Pop Lincoln, Defendant-appellant, 14 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 14 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 1993) Submitted Oct. 7, 1993. Decided Dec. 20, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg.

Michael Jeffrey Thompson, for appellant.

Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., and Mark C. Moore, Asst. U.S. Attys., for appellee.

D.S.C.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


OPINION

Albert "Pop" Lincoln appeals from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. The district court denied the motion upon recommendation by a magistrate judge. Although we express no opinion as to the ultimate success of Lincoln's claims, we vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings.

Lincoln timely noted objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation that his motion be denied. The district court, however, failed to state that it conducted a review of the record as to those objections and made a decision on the disputed issues de novo. This de novo review is required. 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 636(b) (1) (West Supp.1993). Because Lincoln made specific objections to the magistrate judge's findings, the district court's error was not harmless. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).

Therefore, we vacate the district court's order and remand the matter for the district court to conduct the required de novo review and issue a decision or to state that it conducted such review before rendering its previous decision. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

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.