David GREEN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General of the United States of America, Department of Justice; Katherine H. Reilly, Acting Deputy Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review; Terryne Murphy, CIO, Executive Office for Immigration Review; Ana Kocur, Deputy Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: December 06, 2018
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
David Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Catherine M. Yang, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
David Green, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and the district court's order granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because the parties did not consent to proceed before a magistrate judge and Green did not challenge the magistrate judge's order by objecting in the district court, the denial of his motion to appoint counsel is not subject to our appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), (c) (2012); Colorado Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989); Gleason v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 777 F.2d 1324, 1324 (8th Cir. 1985). To the extent that Green seeks review of the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision sustaining his termination, we conclude that the decision should stand. See Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera, 249 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2001) (providing standard of review). For the remainder of Green's claims, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Green v. Whitaker, No. 1:17-cv-01365-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. May 1, 2018). We also deny Green's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. 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.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.