FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 22 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO ABREU ACEVES, AKA No. 14-56329
Armando Abreu,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:14-cv-03559-UA-DTB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David T. Bristow, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 18, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A magistrate judge may not
issue a dispositive order denying an in forma pauperis request unless the
requirements stated in 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) have been satisfied. The record does not
show that the parties consented to the magistrate judge’s adjudication of the matter,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Page 2 of 2
as required by § 636(c). Thus, the order from which this appeal is taken is not a
final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 that can be appealed. Tripati v. Rison, 847
F.2d 548, 548–49 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). The district court’s subsequent
order dismissing the case cannot cure Armando Abreu Aceves’s premature notice
of appeal from the magistrate judge’s nonfinal decision. Serine v. Peterson, 989
F.2d 371, 372–73 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
The parties’ motions for judicial notice (Docket Nos. 6 and 55) are
GRANTED. The court has received Aceves’s pro se motion for reconsideration
and relief from judgment (Docket No. 84), which we decline to entertain because
Aceves is represented by counsel.
DISMISSED.