Scott v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Scott v. United States

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT MANNING SCOTT, SR., Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 98-7164 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILLIE J. SCOTT, in his capacity as Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge; P. Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-509-1)

Submitted: December 17, 1998

Decided: January 11, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Albert Manning Scott, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Albert Manning Scott, Sr., appeals an order of the magistrate judge dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under

28 U.S.C.A. § 2241

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We remand for further proceed- ings.

Absent consent of the parties to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction to enter final judgment under

28 U.S.C. § 636

(c) (1994), this court has no jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge's order. See Silberstein v. Silberstein,

859 F.2d 40, 41-42

(7th Cir. 1988); Parks ex rel. Parks v. Collins,

761 F.2d 1101

(5th Cir. 1982). The record before the court does not reflect consent of the parties to the magis- trate judge's exercise of jurisdiction or referral of the action to the magistrate judge under

28 U.S.C. § 636

(c).

We accordingly grant Scott's application to proceed in forma pauperis and remand the case for determination by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished