Filed: Dec. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60336 Conference Calendar HARVEY DEAN HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GREGORY PARK, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:98-CV-214-B - December 16, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Harvey Dean Holmes, prisoner # 10599-042, seeks to appeal the dismissal of his civil action for damages against Gregory Pa
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60336 Conference Calendar HARVEY DEAN HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GREGORY PARK, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:98-CV-214-B - December 16, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Harvey Dean Holmes, prisoner # 10599-042, seeks to appeal the dismissal of his civil action for damages against Gregory Par..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60336
Conference Calendar
HARVEY DEAN HOLMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GREGORY PARK,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:98-CV-214-B
--------------------
December 16, 1999
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harvey Dean Holmes, prisoner # 10599-042, seeks to appeal
the dismissal of his civil action for damages against Gregory
Park, the Federal Public Defender who represented him in his
criminal proceedings.
We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte,
if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby,
813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-60336
-2-
1987). Holmes filed a notice of appeal from a final judgment
entered by a magistrate judge. A magistrate judge’s authority to
act on civil matters is described in 28 U.S.C. § 636. In a case
in which the parties have not consented to proceed before the
magistrate judge, a magistrate judge may determine pretrial
matters, conduct evidentiary hearings, and file proposed findings
and recommendations. Jones v. Johnson,
134 F.3d 309, 310 (5th
Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A-C). This case was never
referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). There was no consent to proceed before the
magistrate judge pursuant to § 636(c). There is nothing in the
record to indicate by what authority the magistrate judge
dismissed this civil action for damages. The case never went
before a federal district court judge at any time. The
magistrate judge’s judgment is not a final appealable judgment.
Trufant v. Autocon, Inc.,
729 F.2d 308, 309 (5th Cir. 1984).
We are without jurisdiction to consider this case. The
appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.