Ray Elbert Parker v. HUNTING POINT APARTMENTS, LLC, a/k/a Bridgeyard Apartments, a Delaware Corporation…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2362
RAY ELBERT PARKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HUNTING POINT APARTMENTS, LLC, a/k/a Bridgeyard Apartments,
a Delaware Corporation affiliate of The Laramar Group, doing
business in Virginia as a foreign LLC; HUNTING POINT
APARTMENTS, LLC (ILLINOIS BASED), a Delaware Corporation
affiliate of the Chicago, Illinois bases, The Laramar Group;
JEFF ELOWE, President/CEO, individually and on behalf of the
Laramar Group officials as follows, Keith Harris, Marc
Jason, Tome Klaess, Steve Boyack, Bennett Neuman, Sr., Ben
Slad, Scott McMillan; GINA MCCARTHY, the Honorable,
Administrator, individually and on behalf of Shawn M. Gavin,
Region 3 Administrator and all Region 3 officials
individually,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
IRA LUBERT; DEAN ADLER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00590-CMH-IDD)

-- 1 of 4 --

2
No. 15-2389
In Re: RAY ELBERT PARKER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:15-cv-00590-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: April 8, 2016
Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
No. 15-2362 dismissed and remanded; No. 15-2389 petition denied
by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Elbert Parker, Appellant/Petitioner Pro Se. Eric Lawrence
Klein, Wilson Parker Moore, Harold L. Segall, BEVERIDGE &
DIAMOND, PC, Washington, D.C.; Tasha Victoria Gibbs, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Melissa Elaine Goforth Koenig,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Ray Elbert Parker appeals the magistrate judge’s order
denying his motion for sanctions (No. 15-2362). Parker
addressed his appeal to the district court for consideration,
but the district court construed Parker’s pleading as a notice
of appeal and transmitted the case to this court. Parker also
petitions for a writ of mandamus (No. 15-2389), seeking an order
from this court voiding his appeal in No. 15-2362 as
unauthorized and involuntary.
We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
Nondispositive matters may be referred to a magistrate judge
without the parties’ consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). If a
party opposes a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive
matter, the party must “file objections to the order within 14
days after being served with a copy.” Id. Where, as here, a
party timely files objections to a nondispositive order, the
district court must review the objections and set aside any
portions of the order that are “clearly erroneous or . . .
contrary to law.” Id. Except when a magistrate judge acts
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012), this court lacks jurisdiction

-- 3 of 4 --

4
over any appeals from a magistrate judge’s order. See United
States v. Baxter, 19 F.3d 155, 156-57 (4th Cir. 1994).
The magistrate judge’s order underlying this appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Parker timely filed his appeal of the order
to the district court, which should consider the appeal in the
first instance.
Accordingly, we dismiss No. 15-2362 for lack of
jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion. Although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny as moot the petition for writ of mandamus (No.
15-2389) and deny Parker’s pending motions. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
No. 15-2362 DISMISSED AND REMANDED;
No. 15-2389 PETITION DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --