
    Willie COOLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. WOFFORD, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-17071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 14, 2014.
    Willie Cooley, pro se.
    Andrew R. Woodrow, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Willie Cooley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.

In his order dismissing with prejudice Cooley’s habeas petition, the magistrate judge incorrectly stated that Cooley had consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the record reflects that Cooley expressly declined to give such consent, the magistrate judge lacked authority to issue a final order dismissing with prejudice Cooley’s habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Cooley’s contentions regarding the merits of his habeas petition.

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