Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00436-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DUCHESNE; JACKSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

ANGELA MEDELLIN, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00436-REC-SMS 

INFORMATIONAL ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ASSIGNMENT

(Doc. 4)

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS AND DEMAND TO VACATE

AND STRIKE ASSIGNMENT AND ORDERS

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations.

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on April 1, 2005, alleges that

Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of actions on the part of

Defendant Medellin, who is an Internal Revenue Service Agent. The

Court’s docket reflects that the case was assigned to District

Judge Robert E. Coyle, and was referred to the undersigned,

Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder. On the same date, the Court

issued its standard scheduling order, signed by the undersigned

Magistrate Judge. The case number of this action also contains

the initials of the District Judge and Magistrate Judge,

reflecting the assignment of the case to Judge Coyle, and

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 9 Filed 05/04/05 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

2

reference to the undersigned as Magistrate Judge. 

On April 5, 2005, Plaintiff filed objections to the

“assignment” of the case to the Magistrate Judge because he had

not consented to the assignment of the case to a Magistrate Judge

or waived his right to an Article III judge. Plaintiff requested

that the “assignment” of the case to the Magistrate Judge be

vacated and any orders issued by the Magistrate Judge be

stricken.

Plaintiff is informed that his case has not been assigned to

a Magistrate Judge; rather, the case has been assigned to a

District Judge, namely, Judge Robert E. Coyle. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303, Magistrate Judges

perform duties, including determining specified pretrial, nondispositive motions and presiding over specified pretrial

proceedings. A Magistrate Judge is not assigned to preside over a

case unless both parties consent to the jurisdiction of a

Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings, including the entry

of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ.

P. 73(b), and Local Rule 73-301. 

Here, no such consent has been filed. Thus, the case remains

assigned to the District Judge, and the Magistrate Judge will

proceed only with scheduling, initial consideration of discovery

matters, and any other proceedings that the Magistrate Judge is

directed to perform by the pertinent statutes and Local Rules.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s objection and requests for

the vacation and striking of assignment and orders are

inapposite, they will be disregarded.

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 9 Filed 05/04/05 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 9 Filed 05/04/05 Page 3 of 3