Joel Wetzel v. Daniel Brown

Eighth Circuit

Joel Wetzel v. Daniel Brown

588 F. App'x 514

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 5, 2015

Docket14-2605

StatusUnpublished

This text of 588 F. App'x 514 (Joel Wetzel v. Daniel Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joel Wetzel v. Daniel Brown, 588 F. App'x 514 (8th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

State inmate Joel Wetzel appeals the magistrate judge’s 1 order denying Wet-zel’s motion (1) to reconsider the denial of his motion to compel discovery and (2) for a hearing. The designated order, however, was issued by a magistrate judge, the parties did not consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, and Wetzel did not first seek review by the district court. Accordingly, this matter is not properly before us. See LeGear v. Thalacker, 46 F.3d 36, 36-37 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam). In so holding, we of course do not suggest that the order denying the motion would have been ap-pealable had it been reviewed by the district court. The appeal is dismissed.

1

. The Honorable Charles S. Miller, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota.

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

PER CURIAM.

State inmate Joel Wetzel appeals the magistrate judge’s 1 order denying Wet-zel’s motion (1) to reconsider the denial of his motion to compel discovery and (2) for a hearing. The designated order, however, was issued by a magistrate judge, the parties did not consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, and Wetzel did not first seek review by the district court. Accordingly, this matter is not properly before us. See LeGear v. Thalacker, 46 F.3d 36, 36-37 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam). In so holding, we of course do not suggest that the order denying the motion would have been ap-pealable had it been reviewed by the district court. The appeal is dismissed.

1

. The Honorable Charles S. Miller, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 F. App'x 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joel-wetzel-v-daniel-brown-ca8-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack