and (3) Savoca “did not understand at time of consent that Judge Victor Marrero would not review the findings of Magistrate Smith before issuing a final [j]udgment.” ECF No. 74, at 19. The Government did not file a response. A. Constitutionality of a U.S. Magistrate Judge’s Exercise of Jurisdiction Pursuant to § 636(c) Over a § 2255 Motion Mr. Savoca’s first argument is unavailing. It is constitutional for a magistrate judge to exercise jurisdiction over a § 2255 motion. Mr. Savoca does not cite any case law in support of this argument in his filings connected to the instant motion, and although he references Johnston in his latter-filed Rule 60(b)(4) motion, Johnston is neither controlling, nor persuasive in the instant matter. United States v. Johnston, 258 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). “Article III, § 1, serves both to protect the
holding that equitable tolling is available for petitions filed pursuant to 28 usc  2255 holding that referrals of civil matters to magistrates pursuant to 28 usc  636c are constitutional for essentially the reasons stated by our sister circuits holding that a magistrate judge acting pursuant to   636b1  has no authority to issue a dispositive ruling on a motion to certify a district court order for interlocutory appeal under 28 usc  1292b  2000  holding that it is unconstitutional for a us magistrate judge to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  636c over a  2255 motion holding that without designation by the district court and consent of the parties under section 636c the magistrate judge was not authorized to enter a final appealable postjudgment order