US v. Ricky Pendleton, No. 08-7068 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7068 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. James E. Seibert, Magistrate Judge. (3:96-cr-00001-FPS-JES-1) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Vincent Pendleton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Vincent Pendleton seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s order dismissing as unintelligible Pendleton s motions styled Petition for Discharge and Withdrawal and Notice of Request for Tax I.D. Number. 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). is neither a final order nor The magistrate judge s order an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (10th (holding Cir. district 1999) court and 636(c) (2000), a final appealable consent magistrate decision that of absent the judge's under 28 designation parties, see 28 recommendation U.S.C. § 1291); by the U.S.C. is not see § a also Aluminum Co. of Am. v. EPA, 663 F.2d 499, 501-02 (4th Cir. 1981) (holding that, when the district court specifically refers a dispositive matter to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) (2000), the district court is required to give the magistrate judge's order de novo determination). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * We dispense * Alternatively, even if we had Pendleton s appeal, the record clearly untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). 2 jurisdiction over indicates it was 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 3
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.
