US v. Alexander, No. 07-6902 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY GOVERNOR ALEXANDER, Defendant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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 final this case is neither a order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order; Alexander should have directed to the district court any objections to the order. § 636(b) (2000). 28 U.S.C. 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 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.