Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Charles Edward Ebron v. Hampton City Jail B.J. Roberts, Sheriff Ronald J. Angelone, Director, 64 F.3d 656, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where the plaintiff, Charles Ebron, appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action by a magistrate judge. However, the summary notes that when an additional defendant was added to the case, consent to have the magistrate judge preside was never obtained from that defendant, which is required. As such, the Fourth Circuit vacated the magistrate judge's order and remanded the case back to the district court, as the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction without proper consent from all parties.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-08-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 64 F.3d 656 Docket: 95-6265

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where the plaintiff, Charles Ebron, appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action by a magistrate judge. However, the summary notes that when an additional defendant was added to the case, consent to have the magistrate judge preside was never obtained from that defendant, which is required. As such, the Fourth Circuit vacated the magistrate judge's order and remanded the case back to the district court, as the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction without proper consent from all parties.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Charles Edward Ebron v. Hampton City Jail B.J. Roberts, Sheriff Ronald J. Angelone, Director, 64 F.3d 656, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where the plaintiff, Charles Ebron, appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action by a magistrate judge. However, the summary notes that when an additional defendant was added to the case, consent to have the magistrate judge preside was never obtained from that defendant, which is required. As such, the Fourth Circuit vacated the magistrate judge's order and remanded the case back to the district court, as the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction without proper consent from all parties.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    64 F.

    3d 656

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Charles Edward EBRON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    HAMPTON CITY JAIL; B.J. Roberts, Sheriff; Ronald J.
    Angelone, Director, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 95-6265.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Aug. 1, 1995.
    Decided Aug. 28, 1995.

    Charles Edward Ebron, Appellant Pro Se. John Adrian Gibney, Jr.,
    Bradley Brent Cavedo, Robert A. Dybing, SHUFORD, RUBIN &
    GIBNEY, Richmond, VA; Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, VA, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant Ebron appeals from the magistrate judge's order dismissing his 42
    U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) action. This case was before the magistrate judge on
    the consent of the original parties to the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Sec.
    636(c) (West 1993). However, when Defendant Angelone was made an
    additional party to this case, consent to hear this case before the magistrate
    judge was never obtained from him. Because Defendant Angelone never
    consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, dispositive matters
    decided by the magistrate judge must be referred by the magistrate judge to the

    district court for approval.


    2

    Consent is "the linchpin of the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c),"


    Adams v. Heckler, 794 F.2d 303, 307 (7th Cir.1986), and consent must be
    clearly and unambiguously stated. It cannot be inferred from the parties'
    conduct. Hall v. Sharpe, 812 F.2d 644, 646-47 (11th Cir.1987). Absent consent,
    we are without jurisdiction to entertain Ebron's appeal directly from a
    magistrate judge's order. See Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 870
    (1989); Lovelace v. Dall, 820 F.2d 223, 225 (7th Cir.1987). We therefore
    vacate and remand this case to the district court. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED

    You might also like