
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Douglas NICHOLS, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-41445
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 1, 2017
    Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    James Douglas Nichols, Pro Se
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

James Douglas Nichols, federal prisoner # 16570-078, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin. Nichols seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) and leave to proceed in forma pau-peris (IFP) to appeal the magistrate judge’s order closing his case administratively. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A magistrate judge has authority to hear and determine pretrial matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). As a general rule, an order issued by a magistrate judge is not a final order appealable to this court. See Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrate judges). Additionally, the constitution does not permit a magistrate judge to enter a final judgment in a § 2255 proceeding. United States v. Johnston, 258 F.3d 361, 372 (5th Cir. 2001). We lack jurisdiction to address this appeal. See Donaldson, 373 F.3d at 624. Accordingly, we deny Nichols’s two motions as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED AS MOOT. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined (hat this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     