Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 265

ORDER on 254 Objection filed by Roda Hiramanek to Magistrate's Order 240 and Non-Consensual Referral. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

11

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiffs,
12
v.

ORDER ON OBJECTION TO
MAGISTRATE’S ORDER (DKT. NO.
240) AND NON-CONSENSUAL
REFERRAL

13
L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

14

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 254

15
16

Plaintiff Roda Hiramanek objects to the magistrate judge’s “Order Denying Ex Parte

17

Application Objecting to Referral to a Magistrate Judge” (Dkt. No. 240). In the objection presently

18

before the court, Plaintiff renews1 her objection that she did not consent to magistrate judge

19

jurisdiction. As the magistrate judge’s order explained, consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction is

20

not required when the case has been referred to a magistrate judge for discovery purposes. See

21

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
The magistrate judge’s order is AFFIRMED.

22
23

Dated: September 4, 2015
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

See Dkt. No. 238.
1

5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER ON OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE'S ORDER (DKT. NO. 240) AND NON-CONSENSUAL REFERRAL
RS