Court Opinion

ID: 997600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 16:58:52.687733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:02.065561
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT MANNING SCOTT, SR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 98-7164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILLIE
J. SCOTT, in his capacity as Warden,
U.S.P. Atlanta,
Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge;
P. Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-98-509-1)

Submitted: December 17, 1998

Decided: January 11, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Albert Manning Scott, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Albert Manning Scott, Sr., appeals an order of the magistrate judge
dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2241 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We remand for further proceed-
ings.

Absent consent of the parties to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction
to enter final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994), this court
has no jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge's order. See
Silberstein v. Silberstein, 859 F.2d 40, 41-42 (7th Cir. 1988); Parks
ex rel. Parks v. Collins, 761 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1982). The record
before the court does not reflect consent of the parties to the magis-
trate judge's exercise of jurisdiction or referral of the action to the
magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

We accordingly grant Scott's application to proceed in forma
pauperis and remand the case for determination by the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED

                     2