Felix Price v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 29, 2018
• Docket: 17-30689
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 17-30689 Document: 00514620983 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

No. 17-30689 Fifth Circuit

FILED Summary Calendar August 29, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce FELIX A. PRICE, Clerk

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:17-CV-4052

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Felix A. Price, Louisiana prisoner # 91688, appeals from the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. The magistrate judge denied Price’s Rule 60(b) motion. After Price filed a notice of appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s denial. The magistrate judge lacked authorization to rule on Price’s Rule 60(b) motion under these circumstances because Price did not consent under 28

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-30689 Document: 00514620983 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2018

No. 17-30689

U.S.C. § 636(c) and there was no other basis for the magistrate judge’s authority over that motion. See McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 925 F.2d 853, 856 (5th Cir. 1991); Parks By and Through Parks v. Collins, 761 F.2d 1101, 1104 (5th Cir. 1985). Because the magistrate judge’s order was not a final appealable decision, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Trufant v. Autocon, Inc. 729 F.2d 308, 309 (5th Cir. 1984). Moreover, Price’s premature notice of appeal was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court from the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s denial. See FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Investors Mortg. Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269, 276-77 (1991); see also United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960, 963 (5th Cir. 1998). APPEAL DISMISSED.