Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corp.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


November 28, 2005

DANIEL LEE WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMTRAK NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Foreman, District Judge

ORDER

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) states that:

(1) Upon consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . May conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or non-jury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court . . .

28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

The United States Supreme Court has held that a party's consent to proceed before a magistrate judge under § 636(c) need not be express, (i.e., the requisite consent can be inferred from the party's conduct). Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 590 (2003) (consent under § 636(c) may be implied when the parties are "made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it, and still voluntarily appear to try the case before the Magistrate Judge").

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this matter is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson for all further proceedings. Failure to object to this referral on or before December 12, 2005, will be construed as implied consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Wilkerson for all further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

James L. Foreman DISTRICT JUDGE

20051128

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.