Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Garner v. Lamanna, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    1) Vincent Garner, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2) Garner claimed the district court erred in referring his petition to a magistrate judge, but the court had jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 3) The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the referral to the magistrate judge was appropriate and Garner's consent was not required since the magistrate did not enter a final order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7141

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Vincent Garner, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2) Garner claimed the district court erred in referring his petition to a magistrate judge, but the court had jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 3) The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the referral to the magistrate judge was appropriate and Garner's consent was not required since the magistrate did not enter a final order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Garner v. Lamanna, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Vincent Garner, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2) Garner claimed the district court erred in referring his petition to a magistrate judge, but the court had jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 3) The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the referral to the magistrate judge was appropriate and Garner's consent was not required since the magistrate did not enter a final order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7141

    VINCENT GARNER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (CA-04-22464-4)

    Submitted:

    October 18, 2005

    Decided:

    October 25, 2005

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Vincent Garner, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE


    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Vincent Garner, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
    courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241
    (2000).

    Garner claims the district court erred by referring his

    petition to a magistrate judge, but the district court was well


    within its jurisdiction to refer the case under 28 U.S.C.
    636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

    The district court also was not required to

    obtain Garners consent to refer the case to a magistrate judge


    because the magistrate judge did not enter a final order in the
    case.

    See United States v. Bryson, 981 F.2d 720 (4th Cir. 1992).

    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

    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.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like