Herborn v. Astrue

Filing 16

ORDER RE REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR R&R re 15 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/16/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2011)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

PATRICIA HERBORN,
Plaintiff(s),

8
v.

No. C 11-00013 SBA
ORDER RE: REFERENCE TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR R&R

9
MICHAEL ASTRUE,
10
Defendant(s).
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

On June 14, 2011, the above-captioned matter was referred to a magistrate judge for a report

14 and recommendation regarding Plaintiff Patricia Herborn’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt.
15 No. 15). Recognizing that it is the policy of the Court to promote the efficient utilization of
16 magistrate judges and to avoid the unnecessary duplication of judicial action, the judges of this
17 district have established certain limitations on matters referred to magistrate judges. Specifically,
18 General Order No. 42 provides that civil pretrial matters that are dispositive of a claim or defense and
19 require a de novo review by a district judge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) shall not be
20 referred to a magistrate judge unless: (a) the parties consent to final disposition of the matter by a
21 magistrate judge; or (b) the matter requires an evidentiary hearing which can be conducted by a
22 magistrate judge without being repeated before a district judge. Case dispositive matters include
23 motions for summary judgment, for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, to dismiss for
24 failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, to dismiss or permit maintenance of a class
25 action, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. See General Order No. 42; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
26

Because the matter referred in this case is either dispositive in nature or would require a de

27 novo evidentiary hearing before the presiding judge, it appears that it is not appropriately before a
28 magistrate judge for consideration pursuant to General Order No. 42. Accordingly, the undersigned

1 hereby ORDERS that the referral to the assigned magistrate judge is VACATED, and the matter shall
2 be returned to the presiding judge for disposition.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5 Dated: June 16, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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