Whether the District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have created an exception to 28 USC 636 (c)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED i On 8/5/16 a civil case in the Northern District Dallas . Division was dismissed by way of a FRCP41(a)(1)(A)Gi) agreed dismissal without a court order. After the FRCP41(a)(1)(A)Gi) the Magistrate allowed the Defendants to seek awards of attorney fees as “Prevailing Parties” despite there being no “Judicial Imprimatur”. In 2018, Petitioner appeared in the suit under FRCP 60b as a “legal representative”. The Original parties had been dismissed from the suit. Petitioner did not sign or : . file a consent to the Magistrate under 28 USC 636 : : (c). The Magistrate, sua sponte, denied Petitioners 60b motion without any opposition having been filed. Petitioner timely filed Rule 72 objections. The Chief District Judge held that the consents of the original dismissed parties was the consent of pétitioner, who appeared in the matter 2 (two) years after the FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) agreed dismissal of the original parties. 1.) Whether the District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have created an exception to 28 : USC 636 (c) by holding that a FRCP 60(b) “Legal Representative” is bound by the consent of the dismissed parties after a FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) agreed dismissal 2.) Whether the District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have created an exception to Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 601, 121 ii S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) by holding that when a FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) is “With Prejudice” it confers “Prevailing Party” status despite there being no “Judicial imprimatur”. 3.) Whether the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with all other Federal Court of Appeals (including its own precedent) regarding the loss of jurisdiction of the District Court immediately upon the filing of a FRCP41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without a Court Order :