888 F.3d 321
7th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Anderson DaSilva, an inmate, alleges he was given the wrong medication, became unconscious, hit his head, and suffered a serious concussion; he was taken to the hospital more than three hours after the incident.
- DaSilva sued three prison employees: corrections officer CO Coby (who administered the medication), Captain Rymarkiewicz, and Nurse DeYoung, asserting Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims.
- A magistrate judge, acting with DaSilva’s consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), screened the complaint and dismissed Coby for mere negligence, allowing claims to proceed against Rymarkiewicz and DeYoung.
- The Wisconsin Attorney General later appeared for Rymarkiewicz and DeYoung, filed the state’s § 636(c) consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, and proceeded through discovery; those defendants then moved for summary judgment.
- The magistrate judge granted summary judgment in favor of Rymarkiewicz and DeYoung and entered a final judgment; DaSilva appealed, raising whether the magistrate judge had authority to enter final judgment given the earlier screening-stage dismissal of Coby.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate judge could enter final judgment when the screening-stage dismissal of an unserved defendant (Coby) occurred before other defendants consented | The early dismissal by the magistrate judge, done before service on any defendants and without their consent, means the magistrate lacked authority to finally dispose of the entire case | Once the state (appearing for the other defendants and implicitly for Coby) filed an appearance and § 636(c) consent, that consent ratified the magistrate’s prior interlocutory dismissal and authorized final disposition | The magistrate judge was authorized: the state’s appearance and § 636(c) consent covered all defendants (including Coby), curing any defect and permitting a final judgment by the magistrate |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 860 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2017) (magistrate lacks authority to finally dispose of an entire case absent consent from adverse parties)
- King v. Ionization Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1987) (§ 636(c) does not require a specific form or timing for consent; appearance can evidence consent)