Lucius Elwood McLean v. L. A. OLIGMUELLER, JR., Detective; DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; B. J. BARNES; SGT. LINEIR

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6212
LUCIUS ELWOOD MCLEAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
L. A. OLIGMUELLER, JR., Detective; DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE; B. J. BARNES; SGT. LINEIR,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00953-TDS-LPA)
Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lucius Elwood McLean, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lucius Elwood McLean seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order and recommendation to dismiss McLean’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The
magistrate judge’s order is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Moreover, where a
magistrate judge has been designated by a district court judge
to submit “proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the
disposition” of a prisoner petition challenging conditions of
confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006), the parties
must be given fourteen days within which to “serve and file
written objections,” and the district judge is required to “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006 and Supp. 1A
2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --