Paul v. City of San Antonio Ex Rel. City Public Service Board

Fifth Circuit

Paul v. City of San Antonio Ex Rel. City Public Service Board

680 F. App'x 340

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2017

Docket16-51372

StatusUnpublished

This text of 680 F. App'x 340 (Paul v. City of San Antonio Ex Rel. City Public Service Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul v. City of San Antonio Ex Rel. City Public Service Board, 680 F. App'x 340 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Thomas Paul seeks to appeal two rulings by the federal magistrate judge denying his motions for appointment of counsel in a civil action. He also moves this court for appointment of appellate counsel.

An interlocutory order denying the appointment of counsel in a civil action is immediately appealable. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 413 (5th Cir: 1985). However, nothing in the record indicates that the magistrate judge’s rulings were ever appealed to the district judge or that the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal directly from the rulings of the magistrate judge. See Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 219-20 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980).

Paul’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. His motion for appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Thomas Paul seeks to appeal two rulings by the federal magistrate judge denying his motions for appointment of counsel in a civil action. He also moves this court for appointment of appellate counsel.

An interlocutory order denying the appointment of counsel in a civil action is immediately appealable. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 413 (5th Cir: 1985). However, nothing in the record indicates that the magistrate judge’s rulings were ever appealed to the district judge or that the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal directly from the rulings of the magistrate judge. See Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 219-20 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980).

Paul’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. His motion for appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 F. App'x 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-city-of-san-antonio-ex-rel-city-public-service-board-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack