Espinoza v. Ortega et al

Filing 28

ORDER RE: REASSIGNMENT FROM A MAGISTRATE JUDGE.Objections to reports and recommendations filed by 2/26/2018. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/24/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROGELIO C. ESPINOZA,

Case No. 16-cv-06197-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: REASSIGNMENT FROM A
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.
9
10

M. LOMELLI,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

This suit was reassigned from a magistrate judge to the undersigned in light of a recent

13

Ninth Circuit decision.1 While this case was in the magistrate judge’s hands, orders addressing

14

various matters were issued. The Court regards the magistrate judge’s orders as reports and

15

recommendations from the magistrate judge to the undersigned. The parties may now offer

16

objections to those reports and recommendations. Any objections must be filed with this Court on

17

or before February 26, 2018. No extensions of time will be granted. If a party files no

18

objection by that date, the Court will deem that party to have waived his right to object to the

19

magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 24, 2018
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction
to dismiss case on initial screening because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed
before magistrate judge).