Ewing v. Russell
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Written Objections to Magistrates Memorandum and Order Denying Habeas Relief is DENIED. [Doc. 25.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide Petitioner with a copy of the docket sheet in this case and a copy of the consents filed by the parties. [Doc. 13.] 25 Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 10/13/16. cc:copies mailed to petitioner.(CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Case No. 4:13-CV-1757 NAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s “Motion for Extension of Time to File
Written Objections to Magistrate’s Memorandum and Order Denying Habeas Relief.” [Doc. 25.] The
parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on November 14,
2013. [Doc. 13.]
On September 28, 2016 the Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
[Docs. 23, 24.] The case is now closed. On October 11, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for additional
time to file objections to the Court’s Memorandum and Order and Judgment. [Doc. 25.] Generally, a
party who has validly consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) has
waived the right to proceed before a district court judge. United States v. Neville, 985 F.2d 992, 1000 (9th
Cir. 1993). Because the parties have consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, there is no opportunity
to file objections to the Court’s orders. See Finley v. Nixon, No. 4:06-CV-1013 TIA, 2012 WL 27931 at
*1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 5, 2012) (denial of motion for district court review of magistrate judge order in habeas
case where both parties consented to court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)), Boyd v. Moore,
No. 4:04-CV-1791 AGF, 2008 WL 5412267 at *1 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 24, 2008) (same).
This case is not a case referred from a district court judge to a magistrate judge, where the
magistrate judge rules on non-dispositive motions and prepares a report and recommendation to the
district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). This case was originally assigned to the undersigned by
random assignment pursuant to Local Rule 2.08. E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.08. Both parties consented to the
Court’s jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and have therefore waived the right to appear before a
district court judge or file any objections to this Court’s rulings prior to final judgment. Petitioner should
refer to the correspondence from the Court regarding procedures for filing an appeal, sent
contemporaneously with this Order, to proceed in any further action regarding this case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion for Extension of Time to File Written
Objections to Magistrate’s Memorandum and Order Denying Habeas Relief” is DENIED. [Doc. 25.]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide Petitioner with a copy of the
docket sheet in this case and a copy of the consents filed by the parties. [Doc. 13.]
Dated this 13th day of October, 2016.
/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?