US v. Ricky Pendleton

Filing 920081217


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7068 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 judge's order dismissing as unintelligible Pendleton's 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 a final order nor an The magistrate judge's order appealable interlocutory or collateral order. (10th Cir. 1999) and a See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (holding consent that of the absent designation see 28 by the a district 636(c) final court parties, U.S.C. is not (2000), magistrate decision judge's 28 recommendation U.S.C. 1291); appealable under 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). we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * * Accordingly, We dispense Alternatively, even if we had Pendleton's appeal, the record clearly untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). jurisdiction over indicates it was 2 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 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?