George Scott Fast v. Colvin

Filing 26

ORDER VACATING ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED CONSENT FORM. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the January 30, 2018 order striking the January 29, 2018 consent form from the record (ECF No. 24) is VACATED and the case shall proceed before the undersigned and bear the case number 1:17-cv-00086-SAB. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/31/2018. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE SCOTT FAST, Case No. 1:17-cv-00086-SAB Plaintiff, 12 ORDER VACATING ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED CONSENT FORM v. 13 (ECF No. 24) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On January 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a form consenting to the jurisdiction of a United 18 States magistrate judge. (ECF No. 22.) On January 30, 2018, an order was signed reassigning 19 the case to the undersigned for all further proceedings in this action. (ECF No. 23.) On January 20 30, 2018, an order was signed striking the January 29, 2018 consent form (ECF No. 22) from the 21 record because it was unsigned. (ECF No. 24.) However, it has come to the Court’s attention 22 that the form was actually signed, but a technological issue caused the signature field to appear 23 to be blank. Therefore, the Court vacates the January 30, 2018 order striking the January 29, 24 2018 consent form (ECF No. 24). The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a second form 25 consenting to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 25.) 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the January 30, 2018 order striking the 1 2 January 29, 2018 consent form from the record (ECF No. 24) is VACATED and the case shall 3 proceed before the undersigned and bear the case number 1:17-cv-00086-SAB. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: January 31, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?