Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00436-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DUCHESNE; JACKSON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

ANGELA MEDELLIN, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-436 REC/SMS

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF'S

NOTICE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SNYDER'S "ACTIONS OUTSIDE

HER ROBE AND OF HER TRESPASS

ON PLAINTIFF'S CASE" TO BE

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

BY DISTRICT COURT OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING

AND DENYING DEEMED REQUEST

FOR RECONSIDERATION 

On May 20, 2005, plaintiff, proceeding in pro per, filed a

"Notice to Senior Judge Robert E. Coyle to Magistrate Judge

Sandra M. Snyder's Actions Outside Her Robe and Of Her Trespass

on Plaintiff's Case". 

The court deems plaintiff's pleading to be a Request for

Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s

Ruling. See Rule 72-303(c), Local Rules of Practice.

So deemed, plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration is

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 12 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2
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

1Plaintiff requests that the court verify with documentary

evidence that the district court judge to whom this action has been

assigned is, in fact, an Article III judge. All United States

District Court Judges are Article III judges. United States

District Court Magistrate Judges are not. 

2

denied. The Magistrate Judge’s ruling that she has lawful

authority to hear and resolve certain pretrial matters in civil

actions is a correct statement of the law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636;

Rules 72-302, 72-303, Local Rules of Practice. These rules

provide for review by the district court under specified

circumstances of rulings or recommendations by the Magistrate

Judge. Plaintiff’s contention that the payment of the filing fee

established a contract between himself and the court that all

matters would be resolved by an Article III judge is without

merit. Plaintiff’s action will proceed in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Practice,

and any applicable constitutional and statutory authority. There

is no contract and, consequently, no breach of contract.1

ACCORDINGLY, plaintiff’s deemed Request for Reconsideration

by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 12 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2