Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02029/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02029-5/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 

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH HARVEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. BARBOUR, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-02029-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on defendant J. Barbour’s request for 

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s April 25, 2016 order denying defendant’s motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim and requiring defendant to answer the second amended 

complaint (ECF No. 36). Defendant contends the magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to finally 

decide defendant’s motion to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), because the parties did not 

consent to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge. ECF No. 37 at 1, 4–5 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

Defendant requests that the court vacate the April 25, 2016 order and direct the magistrate judge 

to instead submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. Id. at 5. 

Alternatively, if the court construes the April 25, 2016 order as findings and recommendations, 

Case 2:12-cv-02029-KJM-DB Document 38 Filed 06/23/16 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 

27 

28 

2

defendant objects to the findings and recommendations and requests that the court conduct a de 

novo review of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id. 

In the interest of judicial economy, the court construes the April 25, 2016 order as 

findings and recommendations and conducts a de novo review of defendant’s motion to dismiss in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f). Having 

carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 

the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The court construes the magistrate judge’s April 25, 2016 order as findings 

and recommendations, which the court adopts in full; and 

2. The court denies defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32). Defendant 

shall file an answer to the second amended complaint within fourteen (14) 

days of the date this order is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 22, 2016 

Case 2:12-cv-02029-KJM-DB Document 38 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 2