With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S.C. § 636 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge has jurisdiction to hear and decide nondispositive matters without the consent of the parties. A motion to quash is normally considered a non-dispositive matter, Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir.2010), and therefore, the undersigned has jurisdiction to rule on Doe 24.5.180.56’s motion to the extent he seeks to quash Plaintiffs subpoena. In addition, a magistrate judge has jurisdiction to consider the question of whether of joinder of unserved defendants is proper, including whether unserved defendants should be severed and dismissed from the action, because defendants who have not been served are not considered “parties” under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Real Property, 135

A: holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under  1983
B: holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prison inmates action under 42 usc  1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had not been served yet and therefore were not parties
C: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
D: holding that although miranda warnings were not given to defendant police officers they had no cause of action under 42 usc  1983 because they were never prosecuted
B.