Roell v. Withrow

Withrow (plaintiff) sued Roell and others (defendants) for civil rights violations and agreed at a preliminary hearing to have a magistrate judge hear the case; Roell never expressly consented, though a summons had asked him to do so, and his response left that request unanswered. Roell nonetheless voluntarily appeared before the magistrate judge and never objected as the case proceeded, even after she stated she believed he had consented. After the magistrate judge ruled for Roell, Withrow appealed, and the Fifth Circuit remanded to determine whether Roell had actually consented; the magistrate judge herself concluded that although Roell's conduct implied consent, consent could not be implied and so vacated her own earlier ruling. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.