United States v. Pendleton , 304 F. App'x 157 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). The magistrate judge’s order
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219
(10th Cir. 1999) (holding that absent designation by the
district court and consent of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) (2000), 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 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). Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * We dispense
*
Alternatively, even if we had jurisdiction over
Pendleton’s appeal, the record clearly indicates it was
untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
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