United States v. Mettetal

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Mettetal

108 F. App'x 782

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 3, 2004

Docket04-6131

StatusUnpublished

This text of 108 F. App'x 782 (United States v. Mettetal) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Mettetal, 108 F. App'x 782 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ray Wallace Mettetal, Jr., appeals a magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for return of property. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. *783 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The magistrate judge’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217,1219 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that absent both designation by the district court and consent of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), a magistrate judge’s recommendation is not a final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291); see also Aluminum Co. of Am. v. EPA, 663 F.2d 499, 501-02 (4th Cir.1981) (holding that, when the district court specifically refers a dispositive matter to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) (2000), the district court is required to give the magistrate judge’s order de novo determination). Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

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

PER CURIAM.

Ray Wallace Mettetal, Jr., appeals a magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for return of property. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. *783 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The magistrate judge’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217,1219 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that absent both designation by the district court and consent of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), a magistrate judge’s recommendation is not a final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291); see also Aluminum Co. of Am. v. EPA, 663 F.2d 499, 501-02 (4th Cir.1981) (holding that, when the district court specifically refers a dispositive matter to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) (2000), the district court is required to give the magistrate judge’s order de novo determination). Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F. App'x 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mettetal-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack