176 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1998), 98-15027, Willis v. Bank of America
|Citation:||176 F.3d 486|
|Party Name:||Gene A. WILLIS, v. The BANK OF AMERICA; Sierra Plastering, Inc.; Goldrich & Kest, Inc.; Davis Plastering, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||December 11, 1998|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted December 2, 1998. [**]
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
The memorandum disposition entered October 26, 1998, is withdrawn. A new memorandum disposition will be filed in its place.
In light of the above, appellant's petition for rehearing and supplement to petition for rehearing will not be acted on.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Larson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Before T.G. NELSON, KLEINFELD, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Gene A. Willis appears pro se the magistrate judge's dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action against Bank of America, Sierra Plastering, Inc., and others, on statute of limitations grounds. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
A federal magistrate judge lacks authority to issue a dispositive order unless the parties consent to a decision by a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 416 (9th Cir.1992). Here, a review of the record reveals that the parties did not consent to a decision by a magistrate judge. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge's order. See Estate of Conners v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 659 (9th Cir.1993)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP