United States v. Roosevelt Lee Howard

944 F.2d 906, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28085, 1991 WL 186658
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 23, 1991
Docket91-5974
StatusUnpublished

This text of 944 F.2d 906 (United States v. Roosevelt Lee Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Roosevelt Lee Howard, 944 F.2d 906, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28085, 1991 WL 186658 (6th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

944 F.2d 906

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Roosevelt Lee HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 91-5974.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Sept. 23, 1991.

Before RALPH B. GUY, Jr. and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and HARVEY, Senior District Judge*.

ORDER

This matter has been referred to a panel of the court. A review of the documents before the court indicates that the judgment and commitment order was filed December 11, 1990. A letter was received in the district court on July 17, 1991. The magistrate judge by order filed August 5, 1991, treated such letter as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis which he granted and as a motion for transcript which he denied. He further directed that such letter be treated as a notice of appeal.

This court lacks jurisdiction in this appeal. The letter which was construed as a notice of appeal did not seek appellate review of any order or ruling of the district court and failed to comply with Fed.R.App.P. 3(c). In addition, an order of a magistrate judge is not appealable unless the magistrate judge is given plenary jurisdiction by the district court and by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(a). Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-49 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam); McGraw v. Connelly (In re Bell & Beckwith), 838 F.2d 844, 848 n. 5 (6th Cir.1988); Ambrose v. Welch, 729 F.2d 1084, 1085 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam). The magistrate judge was not given plenary jurisdiction in this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the appeal be, and it hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 8(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable James Harvey, U.S. Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
944 F.2d 906, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28085, 1991 WL 186658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-roosevelt-lee-howard-ca6-1991.