UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOHN FREDERICK BALLENTINE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
No. 97-7568
WARDEN OF GREENSVILLE
CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-97-181-R)
Submitted: June 30, 1998
Decided: July 30, 1998
Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
John Frederick Ballentine, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond
Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-
lee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
John Frederick Ballentine filed a petition for habeas corpus relief
under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), which was
referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, who
recommended dismissing the petition. The report contained language
advising Ballentine that he must file written objections to the report
within ten days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C)
(1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The magistrate judge's report was entered on the district court's
docket on October 20, 1997, and objections were due on November
3, 1997. On October 27, 1997, Ballentine mailed a nine-page docu-
ment he entitled "Appeal" to the district court and the respondent. The
document does not specifically express an intent to appeal to this
Court, but takes issue with various aspects of the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation.
This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory orders. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The magistrate judge's report is not
such an order. However, according Ballentine's document a liberal
construction, see Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978), we
construe the "appeal" notice as objections to the magistrate judge's
report. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss the
appeal and remand the case to the district court with instructions to
construe Ballentine's filing styled "Appeal" as timely objections to
the magistrate judge's report. 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 AND REMANDED
2