Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER ON OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE'S ORDER (DKT. NO. 240) AND NON-CONSENSUAL REFERRAL

RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW 

ORDER ON OBJECTION TO 

MAGISTRATE’S ORDER (DKT. NO. 

240) AND NON-CONSENSUAL 

REFERRAL

Re: Dkt. No. 254

Plaintiff Roda Hiramanek objects to the magistrate judge’s “Order Denying Ex Parte 

Application Objecting to Referral to a Magistrate Judge” (Dkt. No. 240). In the objection presently 

before the court, Plaintiff renews1her objection that she did not consent to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. As the magistrate judge’s order explained, consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction is 

not required when the case has been referred to a magistrate judge for discovery purposes. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

The magistrate judge’s order is AFFIRMED.

Dated: September 4, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

 

1

See Dkt. No. 238.

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 265 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 1