Pacel Corporation v. F Calkins

Filing 920090511

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1891

PACEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. F KAY CALKINS; DUCHESSE FARMS, L.L.C., Defendants ­ Appellants, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX AND ALLEN, P.C., Appellee, and DAVID E. CALKINS, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge. (3:07-cv-00025-nkm-bwc)

Submitted:

April 16, 2009

Decided:

May 11, 2009

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Robert Zervas, Christopher E. Gatewood, Virginia, for Appellee.

Madison, Virginia, for Appellants. HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, P.C., Richmond,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Appellants F Kay Calkins and Duchesse Farms, L.L.C. seek to appeal the magistrate judge's order awarding attorney's fees and monetary sanctions to Pacel Corporation and its

counsel.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); (1949). Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

The magistrate judge's order is neither a final order See Haney v. Addison, (holding the that absent of all

nor an appealable interlocutory order. 175 F.3d 1217, by 1219 the (10th district Cir. 1999) and

designation

court

consent

parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), a magistrate judge's recommendation is not a final appealable decision under

28 U.S.C. § 1291); see also Aluminum Co. of Am. v. EPA, 663 F.2d 499, 501-02 (4th Cir. 1981) (holding that when a district court specifically refers a dispositive motion to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), the district court is required to give the magistrate judge's order de novo review). Accordingly, jurisdiction. We we dismiss the appeal motion for to lack dismiss of a

also deny

Appellants'

party, motion for second enlargement of time to file a brief, and motion for summary disposition. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

4