(PC) Valencia v. John Does No. 1 et al, No. 1:2011cv02110 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER DECLINING to Adopt FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Finding That Plaintiff Has Consented to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction 7 , 8 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/15/12: The Clerk's Office is directed to reassign this case to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
(PC) Valencia v. John Does No. 1 et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EDWIN VALENCIA, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-02110-LJO-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF HAS CONSENTED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION v. DOES, et al., (Docs. 7, 8) 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 Plaintiff Edwin Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) On January 5, 2012, 17 the Court issued an Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment, requiring Plaintiff to 18 complete and return the form within thirty (30) days, indicating either consent to the jurisdiction 19 of the U.S. Magistrate Judge, or requesting that the case be reassigned to a U.S. District Judge. 20 (Doc. 3.) Again on June 1, 2012, the Court issued an Order Re Consent or Request for 21 Reassignment, requiring Plaintiff to complete and return the form within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 22 5.) When the thirty (30)-day period expired and petitioner had not returned the form or otherwise 23 responded, a Findings and Recommendation to dismiss the action for Plaintiff’s failure to 24 respond issued. (Doc. 7.) Subsequently, Plaintiff signed and filed the form consenting to 25 jurisdiction of U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 8.)1 Despite having adequately responded, Plaintiff 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff signed and dated the box on the form indicating that he consented to jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge. This is sufficient to indicate his desire to consent, despite Plaintiff’s failure to mark the small box next to the line indicating his consent. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 requested an extension of time to respond to the Findings and Recommendation and he was 2 granted thirty (30) additional days. (Docs. 9, 10.) The thirty (30) day extension of time has 3 lapsed and Plaintiff has filed nothing further. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that 6 Plaintiff has consented to U.S. Magistrate Jurisdiction and that dismissal is not appropriate. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. 9 The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 7, 2012, (Doc. 7), is not adopted; and 10 2. 11 The Clerk’s Office is directed to reassigned this case to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: 66h44d October 15, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.