UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1891
PACEL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
F KAY CALKINS; DUCHESSE FARMS, L.L.C.,
Defendants – Appellants,
HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX AND ALLEN, P.C.,
Appellee,
and
DAVID E. CALKINS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. B. Waugh Crigler,
Magistrate Judge. (3:07-cv-00025-nkm-bwc)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: May 11, 2009
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Robert Zervas, Madison, Virginia, for Appellants.
Christopher E. Gatewood, HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, P.C., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants F Kay Calkins and Duchesse Farms, L.L.C.
seek to appeal the magistrate judge’s order awarding attorney’s
fees and monetary sanctions to Pacel Corporation and its
counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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 order. See Haney v. Addison,
175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that absent
designation by the district court and the consent of all
parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), a magistrate judge’s
recommendation is not a final appealable decision under
28 U.S.C. § 1291); see also Aluminum Co. of Am. v. EPA, 663 F.2d
499, 501-02 (4th Cir. 1981) (holding that when a district court
specifically refers a dispositive motion to a magistrate judge
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), the district court is required to
give the magistrate judge’s order de novo review).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We also deny Appellants’ motion to dismiss a
party, motion for second enlargement of time to file a brief,
and motion for summary disposition. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4