Court Opinion

ID: 994549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:24:27.022385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:23.240977
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-7570

HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge.
(CR-83-52, CA-97-1047-1)

Submitted: February 26, 1998

Decided: March 24, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from an order of the magistrate judge dismissing
without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West
1994 & Supp. 1997). We remand for further proceedings.

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 a certificate of appealability and remand the
case for determination by the district court. We dispense with oral
argument because the fact and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

REMANDED

                     2