Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02389/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02389-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Elbert Parker
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2362

RAY ELBERT PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HUNTING POINT APARTMENTS, LLC, a/k/a Bridgeyard Apartments, 

a Delaware Corporation affiliate of The Laramar Group, doing 

business in Virginia as a foreign LLC; HUNTING POINT 

APARTMENTS, LLC (ILLINOIS BASED), a Delaware Corporation 

affiliate of the Chicago, Illinois bases, The Laramar Group; 

JEFF ELOWE, President/CEO, individually and on behalf of the 

Laramar Group officials as follows, Keith Harris, Marc 

Jason, Tome Klaess, Steve Boyack, Bennett Neuman, Sr., Ben 

Slad, Scott McMillan; GINA MCCARTHY, the Honorable, 

Administrator, individually and on behalf of Shawn M. Gavin, 

Region 3 Administrator and all Region 3 officials 

individually,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

IRA LUBERT; DEAN ADLER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00590-CMH-IDD)

Appeal: 15-2389 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

No. 15-2389

In Re: RAY ELBERT PARKER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(1:15-cv-00590-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: April 8, 2016

Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

No. 15-2362 dismissed and remanded; No. 15-2389 petition denied

by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray Elbert Parker, Appellant/Petitioner Pro Se. Eric Lawrence 

Klein, Wilson Parker Moore, Harold L. Segall, BEVERIDGE &

DIAMOND, PC, Washington, D.C.; Tasha Victoria Gibbs, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Melissa Elaine Goforth Koenig, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2389 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Ray Elbert Parker appeals the magistrate judge’s order 

denying his motion for sanctions (No. 15-2362). Parker 

addressed his appeal to the district court for consideration, 

but the district court construed Parker’s pleading as a notice 

of appeal and transmitted the case to this court. Parker also 

petitions for a writ of mandamus (No. 15-2389), seeking an order 

from this court voiding his appeal in No. 15-2362 as 

unauthorized and involuntary.

We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). 

Nondispositive matters may be referred to a magistrate judge 

without the parties’ consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). If a 

party opposes a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive 

matter, the party must “file objections to the order within 14 

days after being served with a copy.” Id. Where, as here, a 

party timely files objections to a nondispositive order, the 

district court must review the objections and set aside any 

portions of the order that are “clearly erroneous or . . . 

contrary to law.” Id. Except when a magistrate judge acts 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012), this court lacks jurisdiction 

Appeal: 15-2389 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

over any appeals from a magistrate judge’s order. See United 

States v. Baxter, 19 F.3d 155, 156-57 (4th Cir. 1994).

The magistrate judge’s order underlying this appeal is 

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Parker timely filed his appeal of the order 

to the district court, which should consider the appeal in the 

first instance.

Accordingly, we dismiss No. 15-2362 for lack of 

jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. Although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny as moot the petition for writ of mandamus (No. 

15-2389) and deny Parker’s pending motions. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 15-2362 DISMISSED AND REMANDED;

No. 15-2389 PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 15-2389 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 4 of 4