U.S. v. ESTES, 1:14 CV 156. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140903e96
Visitors: 30
Filed: Aug. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the undersigned pursuant to a document filed by Defendant Walter N. Estes entitled "Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge" (#8). LCvR 16.1(C) sets forth the following: (C) Filing of Joint Stipulation of Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction. Where all parties agree to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the undersigned pursuant to a document filed by Defendant Walter N. Estes entitled "Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge" (#8). LCvR 16.1(C) sets forth the following: (C) Filing of Joint Stipulation of Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction. Where all parties agree to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States M..
More
ORDER
DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the undersigned pursuant to a document filed by Defendant Walter N. Estes entitled "Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge" (#8). LCvR 16.1(C) sets forth the following:
(C) Filing of Joint Stipulation of Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction. Where all parties agree to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge shall be filed simultaneously with either the CIAC as provided in Local Civil Rule 73.1(C), or within five (5) days of the Court's ruling on a motion to stay.
The document filed by the pro se Defendant Estes does not show there has been an agreement to the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court. Indeed, it appears that the document may have been meant by the Defendant to be an answer to the Complaint of the Plaintiff. Defendant Estes has written upon the document "Pleads not guilty" and then thereafter has purportedly signed his name to the document. As a result, the Court will consider the document to be an answer of Defendant Estes and not as a Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. This Order will be subject to objection by the Plaintiff and other parties defendant.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the document entitled "Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge" (#8) shall be considered by the Court as an Answer of the pro se Defendant Walter N. Estes subject to objection by the Plaintiff and other Defendants in this matter. The document shall NOT be considered as a Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise Jurisdiction by this Court.
Source: Leagle
