Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Pendleton, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ricky Pendleton's appeal of a magistrate judge's order for lack of jurisdiction. The magistrate judge had dismissed as unintelligible Pendleton's motions styled "Petition for Discharge and Withdrawal" and "Notice of Request for Tax I.D. Number." The Court of Appeals found that the magistrate judge's order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As the parties had not consented to proceed before the magistrate judge and the district court did not review the order, it was not deemed final and appealable. Alternatively, even if the court had jurisdiction, Pendleton's appeal appeared to be unt

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7068

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ricky Pendleton's appeal of a magistrate judge's order for lack of jurisdiction. The magistrate judge had dismissed as unintelligible Pendleton's motions styled "Petition for Discharge and Withdrawal" and "Notice of Request for Tax I.D. Number." The Court of Appeals found that the magistrate judge's order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As the parties had not consented to proceed before the magistrate judge and the district court did not review the order, it was not deemed final and appealable. Alternatively, even if the court had jurisdiction, Pendleton's appeal appeared to be unt

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views3 pages

    United States v. Pendleton, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ricky Pendleton's appeal of a magistrate judge's order for lack of jurisdiction. The magistrate judge had dismissed as unintelligible Pendleton's motions styled "Petition for Discharge and Withdrawal" and "Notice of Request for Tax I.D. Number." The Court of Appeals found that the magistrate judge's order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As the parties had not consented to proceed before the magistrate judge and the district court did not review the order, it was not deemed final and appealable. Alternatively, even if the court had jurisdiction, Pendleton's appeal appeared to be unt

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-7068

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
    James E. Seibert,
    Magistrate Judge. (3:96-cr-00001-FPS-JES-1)

    Submitted:

    December 11, 2008

    Decided:

    December 17, 2008

    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ricky Vincent Pendleton, Appellant Pro Se.


    Paul Thomas
    Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ricky Vincent Pendleton seeks to appeal the magistrate
    judges order dismissing as unintelligible Pendletons motions
    styled Petition for Discharge and Withdrawal and Notice of
    Request

    for

    Tax

    I.D.

    Number.

    This

    court

    may

    exercise

    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2000),


    and

    certain

    interlocutory

    and

    collateral

    orders,

    28

    U.S.C.

    1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.


    Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
    is

    neither

    final

    order

    nor

    The magistrate judges order

    an

    appealable

    interlocutory

    or

    collateral order.

    See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219

    (10th

    (holding

    Cir.

    district
    636(c)
    final

    1999)

    court

    (2000),

    and
    a

    appealable

    consent

    magistrate
    decision

    that
    of

    absent

    the

    judge's

    under

    28

    designation

    parties,

    see

    28

    recommendation
    U.S.C.

    1291);

    by

    the

    U.S.C.
    is

    not

    see

    also

    Aluminum Co. of Am. v. EPA, 663 F.2d 499, 501-02 (4th Cir. 1981)
    (holding that, when the district court specifically refers a
    dispositive matter to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C.
    636(b)(3) (2000), the district court is required to give the
    magistrate judge's order de novo determination).

    Accordingly,

    we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *

    We dispense

    Alternatively,
    even
    if
    we
    had
    Pendletons appeal, the record clearly
    untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

    jurisdiction
    over
    indicates it was

    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.


    DISMISSED

    You might also like