Dunlap v. Colvin
ORDER The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) by filing the Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge 14 . That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(a) and (b) this action shall be co-assigned to a full-time magistrate judge. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 12/3/2015. (mlace, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02139-REB
TAMMY L. DUNLAP,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Proceeding under D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2(d), the parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) by filing the Consent to the
Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge [#14],1 December 3,
2015. Thus, the case should be drawn to a magistrate judge.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(a) and (b) this action shall be co-assigned
to a full-time magistrate judge;
2. That the case caption shall include the initials of both the district judge and the
magistrate judge to whom the case is assigned; and
3. That once a magistrate judge has been co-assigned and the case is fully
briefed and ripe for determination, this court will issue an order of reference under
D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2(e) reassigning the action to the magistrate judge currently coassigned to the case.
“[#14]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
Dated December 3, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
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?