Curtis Green v. Joel Anderson

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6912

CURTIS GREEN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOEL ANDERSON, South Carolina Department of Corrections Interim Director, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Kaymani Daniels West, Magistrate Judge. (5:25-cv-12677-TMC-KDW)

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026

Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Green seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order recommending denying Green’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failing to allege factual allegations against Defendant and granting Green leave to file an amended complaint. We may exercise jurisdiction only over final decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). “Absent both designation by the district court and consent of the parties” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), a magistrate judge’s order issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (10th Cir. 1999); see United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (“The law is settled that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrate[ judges].” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we dismiss Green’s 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