Campbell v. Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

838 F.2d 470, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1525, 1988 WL 7935
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 5, 1988
Docket88-3018
StatusUnpublished

This text of 838 F.2d 470 (Campbell v. Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Campbell v. Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, 838 F.2d 470, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1525, 1988 WL 7935 (6th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

838 F.2d 470

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
David L. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS; J.L.
Eichenlaub, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Inspector; Ralph Smith, Hospital Adm.;
Harjit S. Bharmoto, Dr.,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-3018.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1988.

Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., RALPH B. GUY, Jr., and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

A review of the file indicates that the magistrate's report and recommendation was filed and entered on December 21, 1987. Appellant appealed from that report and recommendation on December 30, 1987.

An order of the magistrate is not appealable unless the magistrate is given plenary jurisdiction by the district court and by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(1). Ambrose v. Welch, 729 F.2d 1084 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Trufant v. Autocon, Inc., 729 F.2d 308 (5th Cir.1984). The magistrate was not given plenary jurisdiction in this case. The report and recommendation was filed as provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1).

It is ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 9(b)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
838 F.2d 470, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1525, 1988 WL 7935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-department-of-rehabilitation-and-corrections-ca6-1988.