Opinion
Nos. 91-3044, 91-3045, 91-3406, 91-3047, 91-3048, 91-3049, 91-3044 (L), (CA-91-106-5).
Submitted: June 3, 1991.
Decided: June 24, 1991. Filed: February 4, 2010.
Appeal 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)
Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger L. Crawford, appellant pro se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, W.Va., for appellees.
ORDER
The Court modifies the opinion in this case by redacting the social security numbers of the appellees included in the caption of the case in docket number 91-3047.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See I.O.P. 36.5 and 36.6
Roger L. Crawford appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 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. 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.
Error! Main Document Only. 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. § 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.