Gent v. Radford University ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JERRY L. GENT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-1431
RADFORD UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge.
(MISC-99-1)
Submitted: July 8, 1999
Decided: July 16, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
Jerry L. Gent, Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Jerry L. Gent appeals the magistrate judge's order denying his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and noting that the case would
be dismissed with no further action of the court if Gent failed to pay
the filing fee within fourteen days. The magistrate judge may only
enter dispositive orders if the parties consent to the magistrate judge's
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp.
1999). Because the parties did not consent to the magistrate judge's
jurisdiction, proper review of the magistrate judge's order is in the
district court. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b). This court has no jurisdiction
over the appeal. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988);
see also Mendes Junior Int'l Co. v. M/V Sokai Maru , 978 F.2d 920,
924 (5th Cir. 1992); Silberstein v. Silberstein , 859 F.2d 40, 41-42 (7th
Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106(1994). We grant Gent's motion to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis. We dispense 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.
REMANDED
2