Does a district court designate a magistrate judge with authority to enter a final order?

By contrast, the district court in this case did not designate the magistrate judge with authority to enter a final order. Instead, the district court allowed the magistrate judge to rule on the administrative motion and removed the scheduled hearing on the extension motion from its calendar without saying whether the magistrate judge had the final say. On this record, we conclude that the district court did not designate the magistrate judge with authority to enter a final order. See Dixon v. Ylst , 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding the magistrate judge's section 636(c)(1) jurisdiction where after the parties consented, "the district court referred the case to the magistrate judge for all further proceedings").

California argues that we may reach the merits of the appeals because the parties had understood the district court to have referred the extension motion to the magistrate judge for a final order. However, the language in section 636(c)(1) is "inconsistent with a rule permitting the parties effectively to make that designation." Hatcher v. Consol. City of Indianapolis , 323 F.3d 513, 519 (7th Cir. 2003).