Court Opinion

ID: 9392488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 00:00:35.814017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.132177
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60296         Document: 00516739020             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-60296
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                  May 4, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Kenneth Dwayne Harth, Sr.,                                                         Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Mrs. Golliday, Nurse,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 4:20-CV-47
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Kenneth Harth, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his
   case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We DISMISS the
   appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the case remains in the district court.
          This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own
   motion, if necessary. See Hill v. City of Seven Points, 230 F.3d 167, 168–69

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60296         Document: 00516739020             Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                         No. 22-60296

   (5th Cir. 2000). In this civil rights case, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
   from the magistrate judge’s (purportedly final) order dismissing the case for
   failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
               The district court referred this case to the magistrate judge under 28
   U.S.C. § 636(c). To properly enter judgment under this provision, the
   magistrate judge needed the “consent of the parties.” Id. That is, appellate
   courts do not have authority to review orders of a magistrate judge directly
   unless the parties have consented to having the magistrate judge preside over
   the case and enter judgment. See Barber v. Shinseki, 660 F.3d 877, 878–79
   (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Although Harth signed a consent form to this
   effect, the record is devoid of evidence that Golliday provided such. Nor is
   there any indication that the court made Golliday or counsel aware of the
   need for consent and her right to refuse it. Cf. Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580,
   590 (2003). Given the lack of evidence of consent in the record, 1 the
   magistrate judge’s rulings are reviewable only by objection to the district
   court. Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989); see
   also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Because both parties did not consent to the
   magistrate judge’s jurisdiction to enter final judgment, the order dismissing
   Harth’s claims is not final, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
           For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
   jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

           _____________________
           1
              The Local Uniform Civil Rules of the United States District Courts for the
   Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi require the filing of a written consent form
   by all parties. See L.U.Civ.R. 73.

                                                   2