Roell v. Withrow

Summary

The Supreme Court held that consent to a magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) can be implied from a party's conduct if the litigant was aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse and still voluntarily appeared. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that express consent is statutorily required and that lack of consent is a jurisdictional defect reviewable sua sponte.