Curtis Green v. Joel Anderson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 30, 2026
• Docket: 25-6912
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6912 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6912 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 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