Estate of Peola Wingfield v. Jack Freund
Filing
920100212
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1503
ESTATE OF PEOLA WINGFIELD, DECEASED, By and Through His Administratrix, Edna K. Thompson, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JACK FREUND, M.D., Individually and In His Official Capacity as Medical Director for the Division of Medical Services for the Jail; ROBERT E. CURTIS, M.D., Individually; WILLIAM RHOADES, Dr., PH.D., Individually and In His Official Capacity as Psychologist and Employee of the Richmond City Jail; JAMES O. WOMACK, Captain, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; DERRICK MCGEE, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail, Defendants Appellees, and MICHELLE B. MITCHELL, Individually and In Her Official Capacity as Sheriff of the City of Richmond; DOCTOR CHANG, M.D., Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; ZELDA JOHNSON, M.D., Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; SERGEANT CUSHIONBERRY, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; SERGEANT WILKINS, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; HERBERT R. ANDERSON, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; NURSE SMITH, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; NURSE MILLS, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; WARNER LIPSCOMB, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City
Jail; JERON BROOKS, Individually and In His Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail, Defendants.
Official
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:06-cv-00247-MHL)
Submitted:
January 25, 2010
Decided:
February 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
JeRoyd W. Greene, III, ROBINSON & GREENE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. John A. Gibney, Jr., THOMPSONMCMULLAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Alexander N. Simon, Richmond, Virginia; Ramon Rodriguez, III, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM: The Estate of Peola Wingfield appeals the magistrate judge's order granting summary judgment to Defendants Dr. Jack Freund, Medical Director for the Division of Medical Services for the Richmond City Jail ("the Jail"); Dr. Robert Curtis, a psychiatrist under contract with the Jail; Dr. William Rhoades, a psychologist employed by the Jail; Captain James Womack,
Medical Director of the Jail's medical department; and Nurse Derrick McGee, a physician's assistant and licensed practical nurse for the Jail. Wingfield raises numerous issues on appeal.
Because we find that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to enter a final order, however, we decline to address the merits at this time. Rather, we vacate the magistrate judge's order
granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. A magistrate judge may enter a final appealable
judgment only if the district court has properly referred the case to the magistrate judge and the parties consent to have the magistrate judge enter a final judgment. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
"[C]onsent to proceed before a magistrate judge must be United States v. Bryson, Though this case was
clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous." 981 F.2d 720, 723 (4th Cir. 1992).
referred to a magistrate judge by the district court, we have found no evidence in the record establishing that the parties consented to final disposition 3 by a magistrate judge, as
required
by
28
U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
Thus,
the
magistrate
judge See
lacked jurisdiction to enter a final, appealable order.
Bryson, 981 F.2d at 726; see also Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 870 (1989) ("A critical limitation on [the magistrate judge's] expanded jurisdiction is consent."). Accordingly, we
vacate the dispositional order entered by the magistrate judge and remand this case for further proceedings. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before We dispense with contentions the court are and
adequately
presented
materials
argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED
4
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?