Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    Robert Brock Cogdill v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, Attorney General of South Carolina, 930 F.2d 23, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition. The petitioner, Robert Brock Cogdill, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The district court had adopted a magistrate's report without conducting a de novo review because Cogdill did not file any objections. Cogdill claims he sent objections to the district court clerk, but they were returned without being filed for lack of a certificate of service. The appeals court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for determination of whether Cogdill timely filed objections and served opposing counsel, to allow for potential de novo review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Robert Brock Cogdill v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, Attorney General of South Carolina, 930 F.2d 23, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    70 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition. The petitioner, Robert Brock Cogdill, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The district court had adopted a magistrate's report without conducting a de novo review because Cogdill did not file any objections. Cogdill claims he sent objections to the district court clerk, but they were returned without being filed for lack of a certificate of service. The appeals court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for determination of whether Cogdill timely filed objections and served opposing counsel, to allow for potential de novo review.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1991-04-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 930 F.2d 23 Docket: 91-7253

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition. The petitioner, Robert Brock Cogdill, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The district court had adopted a magistrate's report without conducting a de novo review because Cogdill did not file any objections. Cogdill claims he sent objections to the district court clerk, but they were returned without being filed for lack of a certificate of service. The appeals court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for determination of whether Cogdill timely filed objections and served opposing counsel, to allow for potential de novo review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    70 views2 pages

    Robert Brock Cogdill v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, Attorney General of South Carolina, 930 F.2d 23, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition. The petitioner, Robert Brock Cogdill, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The district court had adopted a magistrate's report without conducting a de novo review because Cogdill did not file any objections. Cogdill claims he sent objections to the district court clerk, but they were returned without being filed for lack of a certificate of service. The appeals court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for determination of whether Cogdill timely filed objections and served opposing counsel, to allow for potential de novo review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    930 F.

    2d 23
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Robert Brock COGDILL, Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    Richard S. LINDLER, Warden, Attorney General of South
    Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 91-7253.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted March 20, 1991.
    Decided April 11, 1991.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South
    Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-89646)
    Robert Brock Cogdill, appellant pro se.
    Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, S.C.,
    for appellees.
    D.S.C.
    VACATED AND REMANDED.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL, K.K. HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Robert Brock Cogdill appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ

    of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Cogdill's petition was referred to a
    magistrate judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
    636. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and
    recommendation without de novo review because no objections from Cogdill
    were filed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). On appeal Cogdill claims
    that he sent his objections to the district court but the Clerk of the Court refused
    to file them and instead returned them to Cogdill because the objections did not
    include a certificate of service. Cogdill also contends that he then served
    opposing counsel and sent the objections back to the district court.
    2

    Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d) states that "[a]ll papers after the complaint required to be
    served upon a party shall be filed with the court either before service or within a
    reasonable time thereafter...." Cogdill contends that instead of filing his
    objections and then requiring him to serve opposing counsel, the district court
    clerk refused to file the objections and returned them.

    As discussed by the Second Circuit, a refusal to file is problematic because it


    prevents the litigants from forming a record for appeal. IBM v. Edelstein, 526
    F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir.1975). Rule 5(d) clearly contemplates that filing can occur
    before service. Therefore, if the district court clerk refused to file the objections
    due to lack of service this refusal was improper. The better practice would have
    been to file the objections and then instruct the litigant that he needed to
    complete service.

    The record on appeal does not show whether Cogdill did indeed send
    objections to the district court or whether the clerk refused to file these
    objections for lack of service. Also, the record does not show whether Cogdill
    has served opposing counsel. Therefore, we grant a certificate of probable
    cause and remand this case to the district court for a determination of whether
    Cogdill sent his objections to the court within the prescribed time period. If
    Cogdill's objections were submitted in a timely manner, then the district court
    should determine if opposing counsel has been served. If Cogdill has complied
    with the applicable rules then de novo review is appropriate. 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.

    You might also like