Jones v. Sardin , 196 F. App'x 198 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1150
CHRISTOPHER BERNARD JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DESMINE SARDIN, President of Liberty Funding;
PERRY S. LUTHI, SR.; LUTHI MORTGAGE COMPANY,
INC.; CAROLINA TAX SERVICE, Carolina Tax
Service, Incorporated; LUTHI CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY; LIBERTY FUNDING; GENERAL FUNDING;
PERRY S. LUTHI, JR.; MARTHA PACE; LORI MURPHY;
CAROL A. SIMPSON; IRA HANDY; HANDY MOISTURE &
PEST CONTROL; PETE PETERSON; RICK DOE, of
Luthi Construction; RON PLATT; SONNY NINAN, of
Rhino Realty; MARSHA PLATT; MICHAEL DOE; DEE
DEE DOE; KIM DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge.
(6:06-cv-00049-PMD)
Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 28, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Bernard Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Bernard Jones seeks to appeal an order
entered by a magistrate judge denying his motions for appointment
of counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), a magistrate judge may enter a final
order directly appealable to the court of appeals upon consent of
all parties. Otherwise, under § 636(b), an appeal of an order
entered by a magistrate judge lies with the district court. Absent
an express adoption, modification, or rejection of the magistrate
judge’s ruling by the district court, the ruling is generally not
reviewable by the court of appeals. See Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971
F.2d 414, 416-18 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, we find nothing in
the record showing that the parties agreed to have Jones’ complaint
decided by the magistrate judge. 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 -