Ray Parker v. Hunting Point Apartments, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999706401-2] in 15-2389; denying Motion for other relief [999711534-2] in 15-2389, denying Motion for other relief [999706410-2] in 15-2362; [999711516-3] in 15-2389; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999696806-2] in 15-2389 Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00590-CMH-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999791390]. Mailed to: Ray Parker. [15-2362, 15-2389]

Appeal: 15-2362

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2362

RAY ELBERT PARKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HUNTING POINT APARTMENTS, LLC, a/k/a Bridgeyard Apartments,
a Delaware Corporation affiliate of The Laramar Group, doing
business in Virginia as a foreign LLC; HUNTING POINT
APARTMENTS, LLC (ILLINOIS BASED), a Delaware Corporation
affiliate of the Chicago, Illinois bases, The Laramar Group;
JEFF ELOWE, President/CEO, individually and on behalf of the
Laramar Group officials as follows, Keith Harris, Marc
Jason, Tome Klaess, Steve Boyack, Bennett Neuman, Sr., Ben
Slad,
Scott
McMillan;
GINA
MCCARTHY,
the
Honorable,
Administrator, individually and on behalf of Shawn M. Gavin,
Region
3
Administrator
and
all
Region
3
officials
individually,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
IRA LUBERT; DEAN ADLER,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00590-CMH-IDD)

Appeal: 15-2362

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

No. 15-2389

In Re: RAY ELBERT PARKER,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:15-cv-00590-CMH-IDD)

Submitted:

March 31, 2016

Decided:

April 8, 2016

Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

No. 15-2362 dismissed and remanded; No. 15-2389 petition denied
by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray Elbert Parker, Appellant/Petitioner Pro Se.
Eric Lawrence
Klein, Wilson Parker Moore, Harold L. Segall, BEVERIDGE &
DIAMOND, PC, Washington, D.C.; Tasha Victoria Gibbs, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Melissa Elaine Goforth Koenig,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2362

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Ray
denying

Elbert
his

Parker

motion

appeals

for

the

magistrate

sanctions

(No.

judge’s

15-2362).

order
Parker

addressed his appeal to the district court for consideration,
but the district court construed Parker’s pleading as a notice
of appeal and transmitted the case to this court.

Parker also

petitions for a writ of mandamus (No. 15-2389), seeking an order
from

this

court

voiding

his

appeal

in

No.

15-2362

as

unauthorized and involuntary.
We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial

Indus.

Loan

Corp.,

337

U.S.

541,

545-46

(1949).

Nondispositive matters may be referred to a magistrate judge
without the parties’ consent.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

If a

party opposes a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive
matter, the party must “file objections to the order within 14
days after being served with a copy.”

Id.

Where, as here, a

party timely files objections to a nondispositive order, the
district

court

must

review

the

objections

and

set

aside

any

portions of the order that are “clearly erroneous or . . .
contrary to law.”

Id.

Except when a magistrate judge acts

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012), this court lacks jurisdiction

3

Appeal: 15-2362

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

over any appeals from a magistrate judge’s order.

See United

States v. Baxter, 19 F.3d 155, 156-57 (4th Cir. 1994).
The
neither

magistrate
a

final

collateral order.

judge’s

order

nor

order
an

underlying

this

is

interlocutory

appealable

appeal

or

Parker timely filed his appeal of the order

to the district court, which should consider the appeal in the
first instance.
Accordingly,

we

dismiss

No.

15-2362

for

lack

of

jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this

opinion.

Although

we

grant

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis, we deny as moot the petition for writ of mandamus (No.
15-2389) and deny Parker’s pending motions.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 15-2362 DISMISSED AND REMANDED;
No. 15-2389 PETITION DENIED

4