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
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?