
    Matthew Robert YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Max WILLIAMS, Dir. of Corrections; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-35431.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 30, 2010.
    Matthew Robert Young, Ontario, OR, pro se.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Matthew Robert Young, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying Young’s motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt, 523 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Young’s Rule 60(b) motions. Contrary to Young’s contention, the district court had jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” A district judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain non-dispositive pretrial matters, and to conduct hearings and submit to the district court findings of fact and recommendations on other matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Although a magistrate judge may, upon the consent of all parties, exercise jurisdiction over all proceedings in a civil matter, see id. at § 636(c), here, the parties had not consented. Therefore, jurisdiction over the case remained with the district judge, and the magistrate judge did not have the authority to decide the dispositive motions filed by Young or to enter an order dismissing the case. See id. § 636(b), (c).

Young’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and- is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     