Case ID: f-appx_259/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Timothy Governor ALEXANDER, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-6902.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 20, 2007.
    Decided: Dec. 27, 2007.
    Timothy Governor Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Timothy Governor Alexander seeks to appeal a magistrate judge’s order denying a post-judgment motion in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceedings. 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. 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). Thus, the magistrate judge’s order in this case is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order; Alexander should have directed to the district court any objections to the order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2000). 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.