United States v. Boyd , 275 F. App'x 196 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7678
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD WENDELL BOYD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon,
Magistrate Judge. (1:05-cr-00159-NCT-2; 1:07-cv-00655-NCT)
Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: April 25, 2008
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Wendell Boyd, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Reginald Wendell Boyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the
magistrate judge’s dismissal without prejudice of his self-styled
“Petition Requesting Sua Sponte,” which the magistrate judge
construed as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), as well
as the magistrate judge’s order denying reconsideration. The
magistrate judge found that Boyd failed to file his action on the
required § 2255 form or furnish the required number of copies, and
purported to dismiss the recharacterized motion without prejudice
to Boyd filing a properly formatted § 2255 motion. However, the
magistrate judge lacked authority to dismiss the case, as neither
of the parties had provided the requisite consent to proceed before
a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). In the absence
of such consent, the magistrate judge possessed authority only to
provide a report to the district court containing proposed findings
of fact and recommendations for disposition, but not to make a
final determination or enter a judgment. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B); Davis v. Scott, 176 F.3d 805, 808 (4th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for
further proceedings.* We dispense with oral argument because the
*
We are confident that upon review of this opinion, the
district court will also provide Boyd with the proper notice and an
opportunity to respond, as required under Castro v. United States,
540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003), before characterizing his filing as a
§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128, 133
(4th Cir. 2008).
- 2 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -