IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20171
Summary Calendar
ROQUE T. ARANDA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division; JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CV-2326
--------------------
August 10, 2000
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roque T. Aranda, pro se Texas prisoner # 805045, appeals an
order of the magistrate judge striking pleadings and denying his
motion for appointment of counsel. The record is unclear as to
the magistrate judge’s authority to enter the order; there is no
indication that the parties had consented to proceed before the
magistrate judge or that the district court had referred the
contested issues to the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (c). Absent consent by the parties to submit
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20171
-2-
a matter to a magistrate judge, appeals from a magistrate judge’s
order must be made to the district court, and this court lacks
jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s order. Colburn v.
Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989) (observing
that this court lacked jurisdiction to address appeal from
magistrate judge’s order denying motion to amend counterclaim).
We note that on March 29, 2000, after Aranda filed his notice of
appeal, the district court also entered an order striking certain
pleadings from the record. It is unclear whether the district
court intended this order to supersede the magistrate judge’s
order. Nevertheless, we are without jurisdiction to review that
order as the notice of appeal was filed prior to entry of the
district court’s order. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(c) (notice of
appeal must designate order from which appeal is taken).
Moreover, even if we were to construe the notice of appeal to
include the March 29 order, we would not have jurisdiction as
that order is not a final judgment, nor does it fall within any
statutory exception to the final judgment requirement. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 849
F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988). Finally, the order is not
reviewable under the collateral order doctrine. See Exxon Corp.
v. Oxxford Clothes, Inc., 109 F.3d 1069, 1070 (5th Cir. 1997).
We decline to issue a writ of mandamus. See Campanioni v.
Barr, 962 F.2d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 1992). Further, we deny the
motion for injunctive and declaratory relief in which Aranda
seeks to be allowed to meet with another prisoner. Aranda must
first make these claims in the district court; we do not
No. 00-20171
-3-
entertain issues that have not previously been presented to the
district court. See Montgomery v. United States Postal Service,
867 F.2d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
we DENY the request for writ of mandamus, and we DENY the motion
for declaratory and injunctive relief.