Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01118/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01118-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The consent/election form may be obtained directly from the Clerk of the Court or

by accessing the District of Arizona’s web site at www.azd.uscourts.gov. To find the

consent/election form on the District’s web site, click on “Local Rules” at the top of the page,

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rebecca Swick,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1118-PCT-LOA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

AND ORDER

 Pursuant to Local Rule 3.8(a), LRCiv, Rules of Practice, effective December 1, 2005,

all civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a U.S. district judge or to a U.S.

magistrate judge. This matter has been assigned to the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge.

 As a result of the aforesaid Order and Rule, if all parties consent in writing, the case

will remain with the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) for all

purposes, including trial and final entry of judgment. If any party chooses the district judge

option, the case will be randomly reassigned to a U.S. district judge. To either consent to

the assigned magistrate judge or to elect to have the case heard before a U.S. district judge,

the appropriate section of the form, entitled Consent To Exercise Of Jurisdiction By United

States Magistrate Judge1

, must be completed and signed. The party filing the case or

Case 3:06-cv-01118-LOA Document 11 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

then click on “Forms” on the left side of the page and then click on and print the appropriate

form.

- 2 -

removing it to this Court is responsible for serving all parties with the consent forms. Each

party must file a completed consent form and certificate of service with the Clerk of the

Court not later than 20 days after entry of appearance, and must serve a copy by mail or hand

delivery upon all parties of record in the case.

Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction without adverse

consequences. 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2); Rule 73(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Anderson v. Woodcreek

Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2003) (pointing out that consent is the

"touchstone of magistrate [judge] jurisdiction" under 28 U.S.C. §636(c).

A review of the Court’s file indicates that an Answer was filed by Defendant on 

July 10, 2006.

 It is unknown if a copy of the appropriate consent form, electronically transmitted

to Plaintiff by the Clerk at the time the Complaint was filed, was served with the Complaint

and Summons upon the Defendant per the written instructions from the Clerk.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall execute and file within 20 days of the date of

this Order either a written consent to the exercise of authority by the magistrate judge or a

written election to have the case reassigned to a United States district judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented, shall

hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for 

the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2005. The District’s Rules of Practice

may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/.

All other rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01118-LOA Document 11 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

se does not discharge this party's duties to "abide by the rules of the court in which he

litigates." Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

DATED this 11th day of July, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-01118-LOA Document 11 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 3