United States v. Byrd
This text of United States v. Byrd (United States v. Byrd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-7570
HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR., Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CR-83-52, CA-97-1047-1)
Submitted: February 26, 1998
Decided: March 24, 1998
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________ OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from an order of the magistrate judge dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We remand for further proceedings.
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 a certificate of appealability and remand the case for determination by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the fact and legal contentions are adequately pres- ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
REMANDED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Byrd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-byrd-ca4-1998.