US v. Lloyd Carr, No. 20-7866 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-7866 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LLOYD B. CARR, Defendant - Appellant.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 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 Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: June 6, 2022 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
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.
