Reece Mullins v. Riner

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6878 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6878 REECE GENE MULLINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER RINER, Duffield Regional Jail Authority; OFFICER WHEALE, Defendants - Appellees, and SOUTHWEST REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, Duffield VA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00149-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: March 14, 2025 Decided: April 2, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reece Gene Mullins, Appellant Pro Se. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6878 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6878 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Reece Gene Mullins appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on the ground that Mullins failed to file any response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within the 21-day period the court provided to do so. The district court, however, did not address a letter from Mullins dated August 14, 2024, and filed within the time set by the court. On appeal, Mullins contends that the letter was his response and that he believed his requests in that letter, including requests for an extension of time to respond and for appointment of counsel, adequately expressed his interest in continuing the case. Mullins expressed the same sentiment in his notice of appeal. We agree. See Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating that this court liberally construes pro se filings). Because the district court received Mullins’s August 14 letter within the 21-day period, and because that letter was responsive to the district court’s order to respond to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand the case for the district court to consider Mullins’s letter in the first instance. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of Mullins’s claims. 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 3