                                            Filed:   January 10, 2000

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 99-6905
                       (CR-97-135, CA-99-493-1)



United States of America,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

           versus


Densel Recardo Edwards,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.



                              O R D E R



     The court amends its opinion filed November 12, 1999, as

follows:

     On the cover sheet, section 6 -- the disposition is corrected

to read “Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.”

                                          For the Court - By Direction



                                          /s/ Patricia S. Connor
                                                   Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-6905

DENSEL RECARDO EDWARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge.
(CR-97-135, CA-99-493-1)

Submitted: October 29, 1999

Decided: November 12, 1999

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Densel Recardo Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Densel Edwards, a federal prisoner, appeals an order of the magis-
trate judge dismissing without prejudice his motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 1999). The record in this case does not indicate that the district
court referred this matter to the magistrate judge for consideration, or
that the parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction. In the
absence of a referral, the magistrate judge lacked authority to review
this matter. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999); Parks
By & Through Parks v. Collins, 761 F.2d 1101, 1104 (5th Cir. 1985).
Moreover, the magistrate judge's unauthorized order is nonappeal-
able. Id. at 1107 n.9.

Because the parties did not provide consent to the magistrate
judge's jurisdiction, and the action involves an application for post-
trial relief from a criminal conviction, it would appear that the magis-
trate judge purported to act under authority of § 636(b)(1)(B). Even
had the magistrate judge received the requisite referral from a district
court judge, however, its authority to act in a subsection (B) referral
case would be limited to issuing recommendations rather than orders
effectively disposing of the action, as in this case. See Continental
Cas. Co. v. Dominick D' Andrea, Inc., 150 F.3d 245, 250 (3d Cir.
1998). Because the order appealed from was unauthorized and nonap-
pealable, we deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss this appeal,
and remand to the district court for further proceedings. See Massey
v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510-11 (6th Cir. 1993) (dismissing
appeal from unauthorized order issued by magistrate judge but
remanding to district court for corrective action). 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

                     2
