US v. Alexander
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY GOVERNOR ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-00195-JAB; 1:05-cv-01088-JAB)
December 20, 2007
December 27, 2007
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Governor Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Timothy Governor Alexander seeks to appeal a magistrate judge's order denying a post-judgment motion in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceedings. 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). The magistrate judge's order is neither a final order United
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
States v. Bryson, 981 F.2d 720, 723 (4th Cir. 1992) (magistrate judge may hear matters in § 2255 proceedings, but may not decide them absent explicit consent). in this case is neither a Thus, the magistrate judge's order final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order; Alexander should have directed to the district court any objections to the order. § 636(b) (2000). 28 U.S.C.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?