DAVIS v. ATCHLEY (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Kennard Lee Davis appeals from the magistrate judge’s order denying the motion to withdraw filed by Davis’s counsel. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and remand to the district court.

As an initial matter, we agree with the parties that the magistrate judge had authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) to hear and determine counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Mitchell v. Valenzuela, 791 F.3d 1166, 1168 (9th Cir. 2015) (magistrate judge has authority to determine nondispositive matters). The record shows, however, that the parties did not consent to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Absent this consent, Davis first had to seek review by the district judge for clear or legal error before appealing the order to this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 72(a) requires a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order to be reviewed by the district judge to be appealable); In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 865 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989) (order) (absent consent, magistrate judge order not final or appealable to the circuit court).

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal and therefore, we remand this matter to the district court for further action.

REMANDED.