Jones v. Kuppinger et al

Filing 166

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/7/2019 DISMISSING defendants Virga, Daly, Lincoln, Gomez and Vita from this action. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HENRY A. JONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-0451 WBS AC P

v.
ORDER
P. KUPPINGER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Upon the consent of the parties, this prisoner civil rights case now proceeds under the

17
18

jurisdiction of the assigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and

19

Local Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 133. Prior to the parties so consenting, the magistrate judge

20

dismissed defendants Virga, Daly, Lincoln, Gomez and Vitale from this action upon screening the

21

original complaint. See ECF No. 6. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently ruled, in

22

Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), that the consent of all parties, including unserved

23

defendants, is a prerequisite to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction to enter a dispositive decision.

24

Absent such consent, the dispositive decision must be entered by the assigned district judge.

25

The undersigned has reviewed the reasons for the magistrate judge’s dismissal of the

26

above-named defendants, construes the matter as findings and recommendations, and finds the

27

reasoning of the magistrate judge persuasive.

28

////
1

1

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the court’s June 21, 2013 screening order, see

2

ECF No. 6, and pursuant to the requirements set forth in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.

3

2017), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Virga, Daly, Lincoln, Gomez and Vita are

4

dismissed from this action.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2019

7
8
9

AC/kt: jone0451.Wms.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2