Info: Handling Magistrate Orders
Background: | A magistrate judge is overseeing your federal lawsuit |
Problem: | You're unsure what the magistrate's involvement will entail |
Solution: | You read this information on how to handle federal magistrates |
I. Definitions
See also challenge; motion [MOTION IN LIMINE]."
II. Legal Citations
III. Notes
- Crucial Point: Appellate Courts Cannot Review Issues That You Did Not Object To!
"We have concluded that, where a party fails to timely challenge a magistrate’s nondispositive order before the district court, the party waived his right to appeal those orders in this Court. Maynard, 342 F.3d at 1286; see also Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1249 n. 21 (11th Cir.2003) (holding that a pro se litigant waived his right to appellate review of a magistrate’s nondispositive order by not objecting to the order before the district court, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a))"
- Important Point: Magistrate Judges are not Article III Judges
"Magistrate judges do not share the privileges or exercise the authority of judges appointed under Article III of the United States Constitution; rather, magistrate judges draw their authority entirely from an exercise of Congressional power under Article I of the Constitution."
"As previously recounted, magistrate judges do not hold life-tenure, nor is their compensation undiminishable. Therefore, these puisne judges cannot exercise “the judicial Power of the United States.”" - Consent is Mandatory: Magistrates Cannot Preside Over Your Case Without Consent
"The statute does not afford magistrate judges the right to preside over trials (except for the trial of misdemeanor criminal offenses in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3401). Section 636(c) does permit a district judge to designate a magistrate judge to "conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or non-jury civil matter," but only "[u]pon the consent of the parties." See Hall v. Sharpe, 812 F.2d 644, 646-47 (11th Cir. 1987) (observing that section 636(c) authorizes a magistrate judge to conduct civil jury trials, but stressing that "[e]xplicit, voluntary consent is crucial to this procedure" in order to obviate concerns about constitutionality and protect against the wholesale delegation of certain classes of cases and litigants); see also Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1092 (11th Cir. 1990) (adding that "`valid consent is the linchpin of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)'") (citation omitted). The plain language of the statute establishes that if one of the parties in a civil lawsuit pending before a district court states his unwillingness to consent to a trial before a magistrate judge, the district court cannot designate a magistrate judge to preside over the trial."
"The underlying point is the same, though: it can never be genuinely "harmless" for a litigant, over his objection, to be compelled to try some or all his case before a non-Article III judicial officer not entitled to exercise the power of an Article III judge." - Unappeallable: Magistrate Orders Are Not Appeallable
"The law is settled that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates. Id.; United States v. Cline, 566 F.2d 1220, 1221 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Haley, 541 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1974)."
- see United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980)
IV. Bibliography
- Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1249 n. 21 (11th Cir.2003)
- Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1092 (11th Cir. 1990)
- Hall v. Sharpe, 812 F.2d 644, 646-47 (11th Cir. 1987)
- Maynard v. Board of Regents, 342 F.3d 1281
- Smith v. Orange County, 487 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007)
- States v. Cline, 566 F.2d 1220, 1221 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Thomas v Whitworth, 136 F.3d 756 (11th Cir. 1998)
- United States v. Haley, 541 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980)
V. Conclusion
...POINTS & THINGS...
Please get the justice you deserve.
Sincerely,
www.TextBookDiscrimination.com