US v. Reginald Boyd, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINALD WENDELL BOYD, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (1:05-cr-00159-NCT-2; 1:07-cv-00655-NCT)
February 21, 2008
April 25, 2008
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Wendell Boyd, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Reginald Wendell Boyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the
magistrate judge's dismissal without prejudice of his self-styled "Petition Requesting Sua Sponte," which the magistrate judge
construed as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), as well as the magistrate judge's order denying reconsideration. The
magistrate judge found that Boyd failed to file his action on the required § 2255 form or furnish the required number of copies, and purported to dismiss the recharacterized motion without prejudice to Boyd filing a properly formatted § 2255 motion. However, the
magistrate judge lacked authority to dismiss the case, as neither of the parties had provided the requisite consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). In the absence
of such consent, the magistrate judge possessed authority only to provide a report to the district court containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition, but not to make a final determination or enter a judgment. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B); Davis v. Scott, 176 F.3d 805, 808 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we vacate the magistrate judge's order and remand for further proceedings.* We dispense with oral argument because the
We are confident that upon review of this opinion, the district court will also provide Boyd with the proper notice and an opportunity to respond, as required under Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003), before characterizing his filing as a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128, 133 (4th Cir. 2008). - 2 -
contentions the court
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -
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?