Scott v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 11, 1999
• Docket: 98-7164
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT MANNING SCOTT, SR., Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 98-7164 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILLIE J. SCOTT, in his capacity as Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge; P. Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-509-1)

Submitted: December 17, 1998

Decided: January 11, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Albert Manning Scott, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Albert Manning Scott, Sr., appeals an order of the magistrate judge dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We remand for further proceed- ings.

Absent consent of the parties to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction to enter final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994), this court has no jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge's order. See Silberstein v. Silberstein, 859 F.2d 40, 41-42 (7th Cir. 1988); Parks ex rel. Parks v. Collins, 761 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1982). The record before the court does not reflect consent of the parties to the magis- trate judge's exercise of jurisdiction or referral of the action to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

We accordingly grant Scott's application to proceed in forma pauperis and remand the case for determination by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED