Bennett v. Watts et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Proceed Before an Article 3 Judge. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on March 28, 2012. (lda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
CARL BENNETT, # 12198-021

PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12CV16-DCB-RHW

HARRELL WATTS, R.E. HOLT, BRUCE
PEARSON, ROBERTO MARTINEZ, and
ANTHONY CHAMBERS

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BEFORE THE COURT is pro se Plaintiff Carl Bennett’s Motion to Proceed Before an
Article 3 Judge [12]. He is incarcerated with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and brings this action
challenging the handling of his medical condition. He argues Magistrate Judge Robert H.
Walker violated the Magistrate Act because Bennett did not consent to proceed before the
Magistrate Judge. The Court has considered the submissions, record, and relevant legal
authority. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On January 25, 2012, Bennett filed the instant Complaint concerning the way his medical
condition was handled while he was housed at the Federal Correctional Institution–Yazoo City.
The same day Magistrate Judge Walker entered an Order [3] sending Bennett an
Acknowledgment of Receipt and Certification and a form for voluntary dismissal. Magistrate
Judge Walker ordered Bennett to sign and file either the Acknowledgment or the voluntary
dismissal. By a simultaneous Order [4], Magistrate Judge Walker ordered Bennett to either pay
the filing fee or complete his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On February 6,
he complied with both of the Magistrate Judge’s orders. (Dkts. 5, 6)

Consequently, Magistrate Judge Walker granted Bennett pauper status. (Dkt. 8). On
February 22, 2012, Magistrate Judge Walker ordered Bennett to clarify his Complaint no later
than March 7. (Dkt. 9). On March 5, Bennett sought more time to comply with this latest Order.
(Dkt. 10). Magistrate Judge Walker granted him until March 22. (Dkt. 11). Subsequently,
Bennett filed the instant motion.
DISCUSSION
Bennett argues that Magistrate Judge Walker violated 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), because
Bennett did not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction. The Magistrate Act provides, in
part:
A judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial
matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for
judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an
indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a
criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily
dismiss an action.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Additionally,
A judge may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings and
recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion
excepted in subparagraph (A), . . . of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of
confinement.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). As is clear from the discussion above, Magistrate Judge Walker has
issued orders on pretrial matters permitted by subparagraph A and evidentiary matters permitted
by subparagraph B. The Court has designated these to him consistent with the Magistrate Act.
S.D. Miss. Internal R. 1(VII).
By contrast, subsection c, to which Bennett refers, states a Magistrate Judge shall not
2

enter judgment unless the parties consent. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Magistrate Judge Walker has not
entered judgment in this case. Therefore, Bennett’s motion is not well taken and should be
denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
pro se Plaintiff Carl Bennett’s Motion to Proceed Before an Article 3 Judge [12] should be and is
hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of March, 2012.
s/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3