Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00124-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY L. BROWN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C/O LOPEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-00124-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION BY A DISTRICT 

COURT JUDGE

(Doc. 60.)

I. BACKGROUND

Gregory L. Brown (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The parties to this 

action have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), 

authorizing the undersigned to conduct any and all proceedings in the case, including trial and 

entry of final judgment. (Docs. 8, 24, 25.) 

On December 12, 2013, the undersigned issued an order granting Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment, and judgment was entered in favor of Defendants, closing this case. 

(Docs. 58, 59.) On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order by 

a District Court Judge. (Doc. 60.)

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Plaintiff requests reconsideration by a District Court Judge of the Magistrate Judge's 

order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is not entitled to review by 

Case 1:10-cv-00124-GSA Document 61 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

a District Court Judge, because he consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. AIf the 

statutory requirements [of 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c)] are met, the final judgment entered by a 

magistrate is directly appealable to the court of appeals without intervening review by a district 

judge.@ Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 690 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff was 

informed on the consent forms he signed on February 10, 2010 and May 30, 2012 that "[i]n 

accordance with the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(1) . . . to have a United States 

Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final 

judgment, with direct review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the event an appeal is 

filed.@ (Docs. 8, 25.) (emphasis added) Therefore, Plaintiff may not appeal the Magistrate 

Judge=s order to a District Court Judge, and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be 

denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for 

reconsideration by a District Court Judge of the Magistrate Judge's order granting Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:10-cv-00124-GSA Document 61 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2