Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07678/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07678-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7678 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGINALD WENDELL BOYD, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon,

Magistrate Judge. (1:05-cr-00159-NCT-2; 1:07-cv-00655-NCT)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: April 25, 2008

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Wendell Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett

Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7678 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/25/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*

We are confident that upon review of this opinion, the

district court will also provide Boyd with the proper notice and an

opportunity to respond, as required under Castro v. United States,

540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003), before characterizing his filing as a

§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128, 133

(4th Cir. 2008).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Wendell Boyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the

magistrate judge’s dismissal without prejudice of his self-styled

“Petition Requesting Sua Sponte,” which the magistrate judge

construed as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), as well

as the magistrate judge’s order denying reconsideration. The

magistrate judge found that Boyd failed to file his action on the

required § 2255 form or furnish the required number of copies, and

purported to dismiss the recharacterized motion without prejudice

to Boyd filing a properly formatted § 2255 motion. However, the

magistrate judge lacked authority to dismiss the case, as neither

of the parties had provided the requisite consent to proceed before

a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). In the absence

of such consent, the magistrate judge possessed authority only to

provide a report to the district court containing proposed findings

of fact and recommendations for disposition, but not to make a

final determination or enter a judgment. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B); Davis v. Scott, 176 F.3d 805, 808 (4th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for

further proceedings.* We dispense with oral argument because the

Appeal: 07-7678 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/25/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Appeal: 07-7678 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/25/2008 Pg: 3 of 3