### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 19-1365 J EREMY L OWREY , Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v.
A NDREW T ILDEN and W EXFORD H EALTH S OURCES , I NC ., Defendants-Appellees

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 16-cv-1170 — Jonathan E. Hawley , Magistrate Judge

.

____________________

No. 19-3145
S COTT M C C RAY , Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v.

R OBERT W ILKIE , Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellee

.

____________________2 Nos. 19-1365 & 19-3145

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 18-cv-1637 — David E. Jones , Magistrate Judge

.

____________________
S UBMITTED D ECEMBER 12 & 9, 2019

— D ECIDED F EBRUARY 3, 2020

____________________

Before W OOD , Chief Judge, in chambers.
W OOD , Chief Judge . This court takes jurisdictional issues seriously—indeed, it is proud to ha ve a reputation as a jurisdictional hawk. As part of our ro utine procedure, we screen all briefs fi led before oral argument or submission on the briefsto ensure that our jurisdiction is secure and to catch any potential problems. Many such problems can easily be corrected, and when they are, the judges ofthe court can proceed in confi dence to decide the case.Our routine jurisdictional screening sometimes reveals recurrent problems that would bene fi t from a published opinion. A few years ago, I addressed such an issue, when in BaezSanchez v. Sessions , 826 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2017) (Wood, C.J., in chambers), I reminded a tt orneys practicing before this court that we rely on accurate jurisdictional statements. In BaezSanchez , the problem was the failure on the part of many appellees to specify precisely whether, in counsel’s view, the appellant’s jurisdictional statement was complete and correct . I emphasized that these are di ff erent requirements, and thatthis is not the place for creative writing. Either the jurisdictional statement is both complete and correct, or appellee must furnish a comprehensive ju risdictional statement of its

own.Nos. 19-1365 & 19-3145 3

Another recurring problem justi fi es the same approach. In the two cases I have consolidated only for purposes of this opinion, a magistrate judge issued the fi nal judgment from which the appeal has been taken. Circuit Rule 28(a)(2)(v) requires an appellant in such a case to include in its jurisdictional statement not only information about the magistrate judge’s involvement, but also “t he dates on which each party consented in writing to the entry of fi nal judgment by the magistrate judge.” See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The information provided in each of these appeals fell short of the requirements of Circuit Rule 28. In Lowrey v. Tilden , No. 19-1365, the appellees info rmed the court in their jurisdictional statement that the parties had consented to have a magistrate judge hear the case; they did so after observing that the pro se appellant’s jurisdictional statement was not complete and correct and appropriately moving on to provide their own complete jurisdictional summary. See Circuit Rule 28(b). But counsel failed to provide the dates of consent of each party to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. In McCray v. Wilkie , No. 19-3145, counsel not only failed to provide the dates of consent, but he also ne glected to mention that the decision from which the appeal was being taken had been rendered by a magistrate judge. The signi fi cance of the information about the magistrate judge’s involvement and the consent of all parties to that judge’s resolution of the merits cannot be overstated. See Coleman v. Labor & Indus. Rev. Co mm’n of the State of Wis. , 860 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2017) (a magistrate ju dge has no authority to issue a fi nal decision that is directly appealable to the court of appeals unless all parties consent).4 Nos. 19-1365 & 19-3145

This rule is not a secret. It is clearly spelled out in Circuit Rule 28(a)(2)(v), and this court’s Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals (2019 ed.) is readily availabl e on the court’s public website, as the second item under the tab “Rules and Procedures.” See h tt p://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules-procedures//Handbook.pdf. The Handbookexplicitly refers to the failure to provide dates of consent to proceed before a magistrate judge as one of the recurring problems th at the court encounters when performing jurisdictional screening. See Handbook at 145. We once again encourage counsel to consult the Handbook. It is a useful guide, regularly updated by the court and its sta ff , for both experienced and no vice practitioners. It can help counsel avoid the common pitf alls in drafting a jurisdictional statement. See Handbook at 142–45. We expect a tt orneys who practice before this court to give close a tt ention to all of the rules, including Circuit Rule 28. I hope that this reminder will serve its intended purpose and that such readily avoided fl aws will cease. In each of these cases, counsel shall have seven days in which to fi le an amended jurisdictional statement that complies in all respect with the rules.

So ordered.