Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

146 F. App'x 690

United States v. Larson

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided October 27, 2005

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2005-10-27

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · United States v. Bryson

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2005-10-27

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Jeffrey Allen Larson appeals a magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 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. United States v. Bryson, 981 F.2d 720, 723 (4th Cir.1992) (magistrate judge may hear matters in § 2255 proceedings, but may not decide them absent explicit consent). Moreover, where a dispositive matter is referred to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2000), parties must have the opportunity to object, and the district court is required to conduct de novo review of the portions of the recommendation to which objections are made. Bryson, 981 F.2d at 723. 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.

¶2 DISMISSED

/146/fappx/690 · .json · Public domain