Denise Kay Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd James May Linda Brown Curtis Brown

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, in general, filing a “signed form would provide a clear, unambiguous, and explicit expression of consent”
• noting that “the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction over any 4 24-5189 pretrial nondispositive matters, including magistrate-recommended dispositions, is not contingent on litigant consent” (emphasis omitted)
• explaining that “[c]onsent” is “the touchstone of magistrate judge jurisdiction” 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
• finding that a motion to amend a complaint is a nondispositive order
• “[T]he magistrate judge’s jurisdiction over any pretrial nondispositive matters, including magistrate-recommended dispositions, is not contingent on litigant consent[.]” (emphasis omitted)
• “[T]he magistrate judge’s jurisdiction over any pretrial non- 23 dispositive matters, including magistrate [judge]-recommended dispositions, is not contingent on litigant consent, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72, not 73, codified the attendant procedures.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).