Memorandum **

William Burress, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. 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.

Burress consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Burress’s action before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A. 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.