Godwin v. Christianson et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING 15 Motion for Reconsideration by a District Court Judge of the Magistrate Judge's Order Dismissing this case, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/18/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK A. GODWIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:13-cv-00950-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION BY A DISTRICT
COURT JUDGE
(Doc. 15.)

ADAM CHRISTIANSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND
Mark A. Godwin (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

21

commencing this case on June 21, 2013. (Doc. 1.)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

22

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), authorizing the Magistrate Judge to conduct any and all

24

proceedings in the case, including trial and entry of final judgment, and no other parties have

25

appeared. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern

26

District of California, the undersigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to conduct any and all

27

proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge may be required.

28

Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
1

1

On May 16, 2014, the undersigned issued an order dismissing this case, with prejudice,

2

for failure to state a claim, and judgment was entered. (Docs. 10, 11.) On June 16, 2014,

3

Plaintiff filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the order by a District Court Judge. (Doc.

4

15.)

5

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

6

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

7

order dismissing this case. Plaintiff is not entitled to review by a District Court Judge, because

8

he consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. AIf the statutory requirements [of 28

9

U.S.C. ' 636(c)] are met, the final judgment entered by a magistrate is directly appealable to

10

the court of appeals without intervening review by a district judge.@ Alaniz v. California

11

Processors, Inc., 690 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff was informed on the consent form he

12

signed on July 2, 2013 that "[i]f the parties do consent, a Magistrate Judge may conduct all

13

proceedings and enter judgment in the case subject to direct appellate review by the Ninth

14

Circuit Court of Appeals.@ (Doc. 5.) (emphasis added) Therefore, Plaintiff may not appeal the

15

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

16

shall be denied.

17

III.

CONCLUSION

18

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

19

reconsideration by a District Court Judge of the Magistrate Judge's order dismissing this case is

20

DENIED.

21
22

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 18, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2