Bennett v. Watts et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 9/24/2012 (PL)

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

OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [docket entry no. 27] of this Court’s April 2, 2012
Order [docket entry no. 16], wherein the Court denied Plaintiff’s
motion styled as a motion to proceed before an Article III judge
[docket entry no. 12]. The Court denies Plaintiff’s 59(e) Motion
for Reconsideration because he has not shown any manifest errors of
law or fact or presented newly discovered evidence. Waltman v.
Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989). It is apparent,
however, that Plaintiff misunderstands the Court’s April 12 Order,
and therefore the Court will briefly rearticulate why it denied
Plaintiff’s previous motion in an effort to alleviate his concerns.
Plaintiff appears to believe that a magistrate judge must have
his consent in order to determine any matters in his case. Contrary
to this belief, a magistrate judge has the statutory authority to
resolve certain pretrial matters without a plaintiff’s consent. 28
U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(A).

Consent

is

required

in

order

for

a

magistrate judge to “conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or
nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case,”

but in this case Plaintiff has not given his consent. 28 U.S.C. §
636(c)(1) (emphasis added). The undesigned Article III judge will
resolve all dispositive matters in this case, including ruling on
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 48] after the magistrate judge
has submitted a report and recommendation.1 Inasmuch as Plaintiff
asks this Court to ignore the Magistrate Act, that request cannot
be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [docket entry no. 27] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of September, 2012.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

A magistrate judge does not need a plaintiff’s consent to
submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the
disposition of any motion by a district court judge. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B).