Jefferies v. Astrue
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO INFORM COURT WHETHER THEY CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 1, 2010. (Attachment: # 1 ) (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2010)
Jefferies v. Astrue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Normally, the Court would direct the parties to so inform the Court in their Joint Case Management Statement filed in connection with a case management conference. Because the instant action involves a review of an administrative record, however, a case management conference has not been scheduled.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARLTON JEFFERIES, v. Plaintiff,
No. C-10-4397 MMC ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO INFORM COURT WHETHER THEY CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES /
United States District Court
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant
In cases initially assigned to a district judge, the parties may consent at any time to reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See Civil L.R. 73-1(b). Accordingly, the parties are hereby DIRECTED to advise the Court, no later than December 14, 2010, as to whether they consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in the instant action.1 For the parties' convenience, a consent form is attached hereto; forms are also available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, in the "Forms" section. The parties are further advised that they may jointly request assignment to a specific magistrate judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2010 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge
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?