Kauffman v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:19-cv-850-KJN. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190823a46
Filed: Aug. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . The court's records show that plaintiff has not yet indicated whether she consents to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all purposes. 28 U.S.C. 636(c); see also ECF No. 4, (Scheduling Order, requesting parties' designation regarding consent within 90 days). Plaintiff is under no obligation to consent, but a consent/decline designation assists the court in determining how the action will be administratively processed. Accordingly, w
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . The court's records show that plaintiff has not yet indicated whether she consents to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all purposes. 28 U.S.C. 636(c); see also ECF No. 4, (Scheduling Order, requesting parties' designation regarding consent within 90 days). Plaintiff is under no obligation to consent, but a consent/decline designation assists the court in determining how the action will be administratively processed. Accordingly, wi..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
The court's records show that plaintiff has not yet indicated whether she consents to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); see also ECF No. 4, (Scheduling Order, requesting parties' designation regarding consent within 90 days). Plaintiff is under no obligation to consent, but a consent/decline designation assists the court in determining how the action will be administratively processed. Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of this order, plaintiff shall file a brief statement indicating whether she consents to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all purposes, including the entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See ECF No. 4-2 (Consent Form).
Further, it is unclear to the court whether plaintiff has actually served the Commissioner. The scheduling order in this case requires among other things that "[w]ithin fourteen days after completing service of process, plaintiff shall file with the clerk a certificate reflecting such service." (See ECF No. 4 at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff filed this action on May 13, 2019, and appears to have neglected the case since.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. However, the court notes that the Commissioner has consented to the court's jurisdiction, so it may be that the case is moving forward without the court's knowledge.
Source: Leagle
