Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 F.3d 657

Docket No. 95-6563.

Hatch v. Thompson

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued July 25, 1995

Decided August 11, 1995

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-08-11

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Adams v. Heckler · James Jackson v. State of West Virginia · Wolff v. Wolff

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1995-08-11

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 1995.
Decided Aug. 11, 1995.

Robinson Neblett Hatch, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Morris Holleran, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(5) (1988) for leave to appeal a decision of the district court affirming the magistrate judge's dismissal of Appellant's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint.* Because Appellant has failed to present a substantial question of law for review, we dismiss the petition for leave to appeal. See Adams, 794 F.2d 303, 309 (7th Cir.1986) (holding that petitions for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(5) should only be granted in cases involving substantial and important questions of law); Wolff v. Wolff, 768 F.2d 642, 647 (5th Cir.1985) (same). 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

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge with appeal to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(4). In these circumstances, the final judgment entered on the district court's decision "may be reviewed by the appropriate United States court of appeals upon petition for leave to appeal by a party stating specific objections to the judgment." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(5); see Fed. R.App. P. 5.1(a). Appellant filed a notice of appeal, which does not satisfy this requirement. See Adams v. Heckler, 794 F.2d 303, 308 (7th Cir.1986); Moore McCormack Lines, Inc. v. International Terminal Operating Co., 784 F.2d 1542, 1544 (2d Cir.1986). The defect is not jurisdictional, however, and we have discretion to treat Appellant's notice of appeal as a petition for leave to appeal. See id. at 1545. We shall do so

/64/f3d/657 · .json · Public domain