Jimmy Stevens v. Deputy Robinson, No. 15-1058 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The magistrate judge did not have jurisdiction to enter an involuntary dismissal without the consent of the parties and the dismissal order was not a final order for purposes of appeal; the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [ June 18, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1058 ___________________________ Jimmy D. Stevens, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Sheriff Tim Helder; Aramark, Co., Inc.; Quorum Court; County Attorney, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees, Major Randell Dinger, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant, Major Randall Denzer; Deputy Robinson; John Doe, Deputy #1; Deputy Morgan; John Doe, Deputy #2; John Doe, Deputy #3, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: June 3, 2015 Filed: June 19, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Jimmy Stevens appeals the magistrate’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that correctional officers violated his rights by assaulting him. Although the magistrate interpreted Stevens’s “Motion to Suspend” further proceedings as a stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), Stevens argues that he sought a continuance, not dismissal. We conclude that the order amounted to an involuntary dismissal of the action, and that the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to enter an involuntary dismissal without consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); LeGear v. Thalacker, 46 F.3d 36, 36-37 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Because we find no indication in the record that the parties consented to the magistrate’s jurisdiction, we conclude the dismissal order was not a final order, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
