Scott v. Astrue

Filing 15

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO INFORM COURT WHETHER THEY CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 12/14/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

DANISHA SCOTT,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

No. C 12-01835 JSW

v.
MICHAEL C. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,

12
Defendant.
13

/

ORDER DIRECTING
DEFENDANT TO INFORM
COURT WHETHER THEY
CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES

14
In cases initially assigned to a district judge, the parties may consent at any time to
15
reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge for all purposes, including entry of final
16
judgment. See Civil L.R. 73-1(b). On December 12, 2012, the Court received Plaintiff’s
17
consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. Accordingly, Defendant is hereby DIRECTED to
18
advise the Court, no later than December 28, 2012, as to whether they consent to have a
19

magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in the instant action.1 For the parties’

20
convenience, consent forms are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, in the “Forms”
21
section. The parties are further advised that they may jointly request assignment to a specific
22
magistrate judge.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: December 14, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.
1