Fiorani v. Ford Motor ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2125
ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
GRAYSON STUP; TOM DOE,
Plaintiffs,
versus
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; SHEEHY FORD, Dealership;
KOONS FORD OF TYSONS CORNER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 98-2337
ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CRYSTAL FORD, LIMITED; HOWARD CASTLEMAN, Pres-
ident; JASON MINARD, Director; MATTHEW HOLTZ-
MAN, Manager; MATT COOPER, Finance Manager;
RICKY DOWNS, Finance and Insurance; MOHAMED
DIALO, Primary Salesman; UFN OUSMAN, Second
Salesman; JOHN DOE, Third Party Purchaser,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 98-2338
ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TED BRITT FORD; STEVEN GONZALEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge; Barry R. Poretz, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-53-MC, CA-98-886-
A, CA-98-925-A)
Submitted: March 16, 1999 Decided: May 13, 1999
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 98-2125 dismissed, No. 98-2337 dismissed, and No. 98-2338
affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2
Rosario A. Fiorani, JR., Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Eugene
Grimaldi, MARTELL, DONNELLY, GRIMALDI & GALLAGHER, P.A., Fairfax,
Virginia; Scott E. Snyder, LAW OFFICE OF ROGER S. MACKEY,
Chantilly, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
3
PER CURIAM:
In No. 98-2125, Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals the magis-
trate judge’s order denying without prejudice his ex parte “Motion
to Compel Defendants to Sell Property” and moves this court for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. Absent consent of the parties to the magistrate
judge’s jurisdiction to enter final judgement under 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) (1994), this court has no jurisdiction to review a magis-
trate 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. 1985). The record before the court does not reflect
consent of the parties to the magistrate judge’s exercise of
jurisdiction or referral of the action to the magistrate judge
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Although we grant Fiorani’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss his appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
In No. 98-2337, Fiorani appeals the magistrate judge’s order
denying his motion for default judgment in his action alleging
breach of a sales contract for an automobile purchase. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not ap-
pealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. See 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
4
The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal as interlocutory.
In No. 98-2338, Fiorani appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his complaint alleging various state
claims and setting forth an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
We have reviewed the record and district court’s order and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Fiorani v. Ted Britt Ford, No. CA-98-925-A
(E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 1998).*
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.
No. 98-2125 - DISMISSED
No. 98-2337 - DISMISSED
No. 98-2338 - AFFIRMED
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
August 14, 1998, the district court’s records show it was entered
on the docket sheet on August 19, 1998. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 58 and 79(a), we consider this date as the effective date of the
district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232,
1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
5