Background
Thomas Perkins, proceeding pro se on behalf of Yoshiko Marchbanks, filed a civil action against numerous governmental officials, entities, and other defendants in the District of South Carolina.
While that action remained pending, Perkins sought Fourth Circuit review of a magistrate judge’s proper-form order, report and recommendation, and another order. He also moved to extend the time to file a disclosure statement.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that its jurisdiction extends to final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and certain interlocutory and collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and the collateral-order doctrine.
The magistrate judge’s challenged rulings were neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The court also denied Perkins’s motion for additional time to file a disclosure statement and dispensed with oral argument.
Key Takeaways
- A magistrate judge’s proper-form order and report and recommendation ordinarily do not constitute final, immediately appealable decisions.
- An appeal must fall within the final-judgment rule or a recognized category of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
- The dismissal was jurisdictional and did not resolve the merits of Perkins’s pending civil action.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that litigants generally must await a final district-court judgment before appealing. Recommendations and procedural orders issued by a magistrate judge ordinarily must first proceed through district-court review.