Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06902/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06902-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Governor Alexander
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-6902 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY GOVERNOR ALEXANDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00195-JAB; 1:05-cv-01088-JAB)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Governor Alexander, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 07-6902 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

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 (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 appealable

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

Appeal: 07-6902 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 2 of 2