UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID SWIFT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason,
Magistrate Judge. (CR-89-235; CA-97-116-2)
Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: February 10, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Swift, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Swift appeals a magistrate judge’s order denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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). Moreover, where a
dispositive matter is referred to the magistrate judge under 28
U.S.C.A. § 636(b) (West Supp. 2004), parties must have the
opportunity to object, and the district court is required to
conduct de novo review of the portions of the recommendation to
which objections are made. Bryson, 981 F.2d at 723. 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 -