Marlon Boykin v. IRS

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2407

MARLON DWAYNE BOYKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Robert Boyd Jones, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (7:25-mc-00003-RJ)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 27, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlon Dwayne Boykin, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Patrick Jones, Robert Joseph Wille, Jr., Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Dwayne Boykin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order purporting to deny Boykin’s motions to quash a summons and for the return and destruction of certain documents. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the parties did not consent to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction and the district court has not adopted or acted on the magistrate judge’s order .

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 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, 545-46 (1949). The magistrate judge’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Jones v. Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA, 778 F.3d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 2015) (“A purported final decision issued by a magistrate judge acting outside of his authority is a nullity. That means that we have no final judgment in this case; it is still pending before the district court with a de facto recommendation from the magistrate judge.”).

Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion and dismiss the 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