22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T477,MEMORANDUM Raymond Arthur Gentile appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review -de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand. Gentile consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Gentile’s action before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings. VACATED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4a4,

MEMORANDUM

Raymond Arthur Gentile appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review -de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Gentile consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Gentile’s action before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.