William Singletary v. Adell Dobey , 500 F. App'x 223 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7299
MR. WILLIAM E. SINGLETARY, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ADELL DOBEY, Edgefield County Sheriff; RONALD CARTER;
MICHAEL BUTTS, Officer; MARK PICA, Corporal; MIKE COCKRELL,
Lieutenant; CHRIS WASH, Captain; MICHAEL RAFFIELD, Sergeant;
LIEUTENANT JAGGER; LIEUTENANT HALL; JOSHUA JONES,
Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PRINCE; DEPUTY
FLORIDA; KYTHER POTTS, Sergeant, denied Civil Rights;
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, a/k/a Health Partner's; DR. TAMI
Y. MASSEY; EDGEFIELD HOSPITAL,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
EDGEFIELD SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; BRENDA CARPENTER, Magistrate
Judge; EDGEFIELD DETENTION CENTER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate
Judge. (9:11-cv-02658-MGL-BM)
Submitted: November 26, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William E. Singletary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Russell W.
Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South
Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, Daniel C. Plyer, DAVIDSON
& LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Elliott T. Halio,
HALIO & HALIO, Charleston, South Carolina; Janet Brooks Holmes,
Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William E. Singletary, Jr. seeks to appeal the
magistrate judge’s orders denying his motion requesting waiver
of sovereign immunity and his subsequent motion for
reconsideration. Appellees Pica, Carter, Butts, and Cockrell
have moved to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
Absent both designation by the district court and consent of the
parties, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), a magistrate judge lacks
authority to issue dispositive orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
(2000); Colorado Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen
Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989) (appellate court
has no jurisdiction over magistrate's order unless district
court designates such authority to magistrate or parties
consent); Gleason v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., 777 F.2d
1324 (8th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Bryson, 981 F.2d
720, 723-26 (4th Cir. 1992) (discussing magistrate judge’s
authority to rule on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion); United
States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 585 (1st Cir. 1981)
(magistrate judge authorized to make only determinations that do
not constitute final judgments). Because it does not appear
3
from the record that the parties have consented to the authority
of the magistrate judge, and no other basis for immediate review
exists at this time, the magistrate judge’s orders are
interlocutory orders not subject to appellate review in this
court. Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4