Faron E. Lovelace v. Robin Sandy;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FARON E. LOVELACE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBIN SANDY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35518
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00430-REB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Ronald E. Bush, Chief Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Faron E. Lovelace appeals pro se from the magistrate
judge’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out
of the allegedly improper termination of a prison visit. We review de novo
whether a magistrate judge has jurisdiction. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68
FILED
AUG 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

(9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.
Contrary to the magistrate judge’s statement in its order dismissing
Lovelace’s amended complaint, Lovelace did not consent to proceed before a
magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (authorizing magistrate judge to
“conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry
of judgment in the case” “[u]pon the consent of the parties”). The consent forms
filed on October 17, 2014 and March 18, 2015 were executed by putative co-
plaintiff Melissa Kuntz-Corta, not Lovelace. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment
and remand to the district court for further proceedings. See Allen, 755 F.3d at 868
(judgment entered by magistrate judge a nullity where some parties did not consent
to magistrate judge’s jurisdiction).
On remand, the district court may review the complaint de novo in the first
instance pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, or may construe the magistrate judge’s
May 18, 2015 order as a report and recommendation and afford Lovelace
reasonable time to file objections.
In light of our disposition, we do not consider the other issues raised in the
opening brief.
VACATED and REMANDED.
15-35518 2

-- 2 of 2 --