From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frazer v. Miller-Stout

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Dec 28, 2006
No. CV-06-037-CI (E.D. Wash. Dec. 28, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV-06-037-CI.

December 28, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT


BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge and the Report and Recommendation to Deny said motion (Ct. Recs. 61, 68). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se; Assistant Attorney General Mary Catherine McLachlan represents Defendants. The parties have previously consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (Ct. Rec. 34). However, in light of Plaintiff's motion to withdraw that consent, this matter was addressed on Report and Recommendation.

Upon consent of the parties, a magistrate judge may conduct proceedings in a civil matter when designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court she serves. 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1). On July 26, 2006, based on the signed consent of both parties to this action, the Court ordered the matter referred to Magistrate Judge Cynthia Imbrogno. (Ct. Rec. 34). Although a party has no right to withdraw his consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, the Court may vacate its reference to a magistrate judge if the moving party shows extraordinary circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff states that he was unaware he had the option of proceeding before a United States District Judge. (Ct. Rec. 61). However, the Consent to Proceed before a magistrate judge signed by Plaintiff clearly states, "Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties in the captioned matter waive their right to proceed before a Judge of the United States District Court. . . ." (Ct. Rec. 34). Plaintiff has not shown "extraordinary circumstances" to warrant vacating the Court's order of reference.

Magistrate Judge Imbrogno entered a Report and Recommendation to deny Plaintiff's motion to withdraw his approval to proceed before her on November 29, 2006 (Ct. Rec. 68). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the report and recommendation. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Approval to Proceed before United States Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Ct. Rec. 68) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and forward copies to counsel.


Summaries of

Frazer v. Miller-Stout

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Dec 28, 2006
No. CV-06-037-CI (E.D. Wash. Dec. 28, 2006)
Case details for

Frazer v. Miller-Stout

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY JON FRAZER, Plaintiff, v. MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT, HAROLD CLARKE, and…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Washington

Date published: Dec 28, 2006

Citations

No. CV-06-037-CI (E.D. Wash. Dec. 28, 2006)

Citing Cases

OLSEN ET AL. v. MERRILL ET AL

The defendants contend that as Ole E. Olsen, Jr., does not reside in municipal ward No. 3, and that as George…

Diettrich Bros., Inc. v. Anderson

Under the law of this state, if the debtor makes no specific application at the time of payment, then the…