Manuel Camarillo-Chagoya v. KAREN F. HOGSTEN, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7467
MANUEL CAMARILLO-CHAGOYA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KAREN F. HOGSTEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Cheryl Ann Eifert,
Magistrate Judge. (1:13-cv-16790)
Submitted: January 27, 2014 Decided: February 5, 2014
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Manuel Camarillo-Chagoya, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Camarillo-Chagoya appeals the magistrate
judge’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as
a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and transferring his case
to the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. We
conclude that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to enter
this dispositional order. We therefore vacate the magistrate
judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.
“The statutory scheme of [28 U.S.C.] § 636 [(2012)]
contemplates two distinct ways of granting a magistrate judge
jurisdiction over a § 2255 motion” or other postconviction
petition. United States v. Bryson, 981 F.2d 720, 723 (4th Cir.
1992). Under § 636(b)(1)(B), a magistrate judge may be
designated to conduct a hearing and submit proposed findings and
recommendations in such cases. “This subsection contemplates
that magistrate judges may hear matters in post-trial relief
proceedings, but may not decide them.” Id. “Alternatively, the
statutory scheme [§ 636(c)] also contemplates that a § 2255
motion can be decided by a magistrate judge with the consent of
the parties.” Id. The consent of the parties was not given in
this case. Absent both designation by the district court and
consent of the parties, pursuant to § 636(c), a magistrate judge
lacks authority to issue dispositive orders. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Here, not only did the magistrate judge’s order
dispose of Camarillo-Chagoya’s § 2241 petition by construing it
as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), it failed
to provide Camarillo-Chagoya with the requisite notice of this
action and an opportunity to either withdraw the motion or amend
it to add “all the § 2255 claims he believes he has.” Castro v.
United States, 540 U.S. 375, 384 (2003).
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, vacate the order entered by the magistrate judge, and
remand this case for further proceedings. The district court
clerk is directed to inform the Clerk of the Western District of
Arkansas of this decision. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --