Sonja L. Williams v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The magistrate judge’s report is…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7173
SONJA L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SERGEANT SHEPPHARD, at Rappahannock Regional
Jail; D. THEISEN, Sergeant at Rappahannock
Regional Jail; MR. SULLIVAN, Officer at
Rappahannock Regional Jail; MR. ALEXANDER,
Officer at Rappahannock Regional Jail,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Court
Judge; M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00776-REP)
Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 11, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sonja L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*Such a construction is further warranted by the fact that,
although the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2000), the report states
that the magistrate judge was conferred jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Sonja L. Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation to deny relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2000) complaint. The report contained language advising Williams
that she must file written objections to the report within ten days
of the order’s entry. The magistrate judge’s report was entered on
June 22, 2006, and within ten days of its entry, Williams filed in
the district court an “appeal” of the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 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 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
magistrate judge’s report is not such an order. However, according
Williams’ document a liberal construction, see Gordon v. Leeke, 574
F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978), we construe the “appeal” letter as
objections to the magistrate judge’s report. * We therefore deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, dismiss the appeal,
and remand to the district court with instructions to construe

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Williams’ filing 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

-- 3 of 3 --