United States v. James Nichols

678 F. App'x 214
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 1, 2017
Docket15-41445
StatusUnpublished

This text of 678 F. App'x 214 (United States v. James Nichols) 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
United States v. James Nichols, 678 F. App'x 214 (5th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

James Douglas Nichols, federal prisoner # 16570-078, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin. Nichols seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) and leave to proceed in forma pau-peris (IFP) to appeal the magistrate judge’s order closing his case administratively. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A magistrate judge has *215 authority to hear and determine pretrial matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). As a general rule, an order issued by a magistrate judge is not a final order appealable to this court. See Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrate judges). Additionally, the constitution does not permit a magistrate judge to enter a final judgment in a § 2255 proceeding. United States v. Johnston, 258 F.3d 361, 372 (5th Cir. 2001). We lack jurisdiction to address this appeal. See Donaldson, 373 F.3d at 624. Accordingly, we deny Nichols’s two motions as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED AS MOOT.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined (hat this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
678 F. App'x 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-nichols-ca5-2017.