Hargett v. Forsyth County Sheriff's Office , 136 F. App'x 587 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6201
CHARLES FRANKLIN HARGETT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; J. W. BOLES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-440-1)
Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 29, 2005
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Franklin Hargett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Allan R. Gitter,
Bradley Owen Wood, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C.,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Franklin Hargett, Jr., appeals the magistrate
judge’s recommendation that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action be
dismissed with prejudice. 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 recommendation is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Where a dispositive matter is referred to the magistrate judge
under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b) (West Supp. 2004), parties must have the
opportunity to object, and the district court is required to
conduct de novo review of the portions of the recommendation to
which objections are made. United States v. Bryson, 981 F.2d 720,
723 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -