Case Name: George F. CAUSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry Dargon MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-19
Citations: 119 F. App'x 540
Docket Number: No. 04-6718
Parties: George F. CAUSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry Dargon MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
George F. CAUSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry Dargon MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-6718.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2005.
Decided: Jan. 19, 2005.
George F. Causey, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George F. Causey seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's report recommending that his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition be dismissed as successive. Rather than file objections to the report and recommendation, that would be considered by the district court, Causey filed a notice of appeal. 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 order Causey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that absent both designation by the district court and consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), a magistrate judge's recommendation is not a final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (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
The matter had been referred to the magistrate judge for a recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).