Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01430/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01430-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1430

___________

Rufus J. Ervin, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Don Roper, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 30, 2005

Filed: October 26, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rufus J. Ervin, Sr. petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The

case was initially assigned to The Honorable Mary Ann L. Medler, United States

Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. It was then assigned to The

Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri. It was then referred to The Honorable Lewis M. Blanton,

Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), for “report and recommendation on dispositive matters and for rulings on

all non-dispositive matters.” Ervin later filed a motion to appoint counsel which was

denied without prejudice. Ervin then filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial

Appellate Case: 05-1430 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2005 Entry ID: 1967623
-2-

of his motion to appoint counsel. This motion was also denied without prejudice.

Ervin timely appeals the denial of his motion to appoint counsel and moves for the

appointment of appellate counsel. 

If a magistrate judge is assigned a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), which

requires the consent of both parties, the decisions of that judge may be appealed to

the United States Court of Appeals in the same manner as if they are judgments of the

district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). However, when, as here, the magistrate judge

is referred the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties may not appeal directly

to this court from an order of the magistrate judge. Loewen-America, Inc. v. Advance

Distrib. Co., 673 F.2d 219, 220 (8th Cir. 1982). Because Ervin did not appeal the

magistrate judge’s decision to the district court, there is no final judgment by the

district court, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Id.; Daley v.

Marriott Int’l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 893 n.9 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[W]hen . . . a litigant

could have tested a magistrate’s ruling by bringing it before the district judge, but

failed to do so within the allotted ten-day period [in Rule 72(a)], he [or she] cannot

later leapfrog the trial court and appeal the ruling directly to the court of appeals.”)

(quoting Pagano v. Frank, 983 F.2d 343, 346 (1st Cir. 1993)) (omission and second

alteration in original). 

Even though this particular jurisdictional argument was not raised by either

party below, “when the record indicates jurisdiction may be lacking, we must

consider the jurisdictional issue sua sponte.” Bilello v. Kum & Go, LLC, 374 F.3d

656, 659 (8th Cir. 2004). Thus, for the foregoing reason, we dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, Ervin’s pending motion for appointment of

appellate counsel is dismissed as moot. 

________________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1430 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2005 Entry ID: 1967623