Romanowski v. Trans Union LLC et al, No. 3:2022cv00428 - Document 45 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order re: the plaintiff's 44 Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the motion is DENIED. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 2/28/2022) (mcrd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Romanowski v. Trans Union LLC et al Doc. 45 Case 3:22-cv-00428-E-BH Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 283 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DANIEL ROMANOWSKI, Plaintiff, vs. TRANS UNION, LLC, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:22-CV-0428-E-BH Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, filed February 25, 2022 (doc. 44). He “declines[s] to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case” and requests reassignment to a United States district judge. Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the motion is DENIED. At the time this case was opened, it was assigned to a United States District Judge. A district judge is statutorily authorized to designate a magistrate judge to determine pretrial matters and to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and recommendation on dispositive matters by 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(a). Under that express authority, the Northern District of Texas has implemented Special Order 3-251, which provides for automatic referral of certain cases and matters to magistrate judges. According to the automatic referral provisions of Special Order 3-251 for the district judge to whom this pro se case is assigned, it has been automatically assigned to the designated United States Magistrate for full case management, including determination of nondispositive motions and issuance of findings, conclusions, and recommendations on dispositive motions. Because the assigned district judge has retained the ultimate decision-making authority for this case, the plaintiff’s consent to this referral procedure is not required. See Nixon v. GMAC 1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full case management. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:22-cv-00428-E-BH Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 284 Mortg. Corp., 408 F. App’x 833, 834 (5th Cir. 2011). In addition, both § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 set forth the procedures for parties to object to magistrate judges’ pretrial orders and findings and recommendations. Because a district judge has already been assigned to this case, and the parties’ consent to the referral to a magistrate judge for full case management is not required, the plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. SIGNED this 28th day of February, 2022. ___________________________________ IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
