Matthew Dury v. J. Ciufo ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW JAMES DURY, No. 20-15673
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00595-AWI-
BAM
v.
J. CIUFO, Unit Manager, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Matthew James Dury appeals pro se from the magistrate
judge’s order denying his post-judgment motion to collect filing fees or forfeit
future collections. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo whether the magistrate judge had jurisdiction. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866,
*
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).
867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.
The magistrate judge denied Dury’s post-judgment motion related to the
partial payment of filing fees. However, all parties, including unserved defendants,
must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest. See
Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017); Columbia Record Prod. v.
Hot Wax Records, Inc., 966 F.2d 515, 516-17 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that absent
consent, a federal magistrate judge lacked authority to render a post-judgment
decision that has a dispositive effect on the parties). Because none of the parties
consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), we
vacate the magistrate judge’s March 3, 2020 order and remand for further
proceedings. On remand, the district judge may treat the magistrate judge’s order
as a report and recommendation.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 20-15673