our fourth case for this morning is coleman against department of labor review commission the case gets sort of cut off at the knees before it ever even gets to the defendants is is there room for that kind of argument in your view or is that in permissible given wellness and you know very so there's supreme court  and then enter a decision on the merits mr affirmatively make that determination so the argument such a machine makes as to whether or not the they were harmed by the screening process i think are somewhat irrelevant we did identify some harms in all of my brief i think that there are many individuals who would like to know that a lawsuit has been followed against them if your a prison guard or a police officer and an inmate or a suspect has filed a claim against you you might want to know that because it's relevant to your employment similarly for a doctor who's been circuit trying to use a territorial judge or whether voir dire and sell any cases or what have you that there are a certain number of things for perhaps your the formal reasons have to happen befor article three judge i'm not sure you can answer the hard question to be honest because i'm sure i mean we have very good magistrate judges you could probably have a magistrate judges handling a great number of trials even without consent and i would be hard pressed to say there was harm in that either if i was judge and said i need you to enter disorder and you know it's a very brief one paragraph report recommendations saying so the defendant is still spared service being annoyed by the case etc it's just that in article three judge i think from ones in which the defendant hasn't been served in the way get rid of them i think i don't think those cases are necessarily distinguishable because of the very clear text of the statute here congress was very purpose sales to appeal something within the thirty or sixty day appealed online and appeals on the thirty first day or the sixty first day there isn't necessarily any harm there in terms of all they got one extra day to write their brief but the supreme court is instructing the belzer says russell case that you cannot hear about waltz you got a court of appeals last year a section over that so even though there is not necessarily a harm to the defendant i think there are rules the courts need to follow because in order to have any type of notion of was was in place so congress was presumably aware that the idea of people process worked in this regard and if you wanted to create a carvel where for i if p cases or for screening magistrate judge is could enter final judgment you could have done so and you know we the public rights cases that that that you see sort of used to seize an exception to the article three rules and congress decided against allowing that it should go just to enter final judgment those cases because of the uproar from the federal bar the congress strong droop and this type of slow creep into the areas like entering final judgment as what happened here that occurred are the types of things that congress was concerned about and even though it is largely formalised i think is the type of formalistic rule statute allows it though i mean i certainly take the point that we're discussing a formal rule not something that is a pragmatic rule because if we went down the pragmatic line i might be delighted to give the magistrate judge a great number of cases because i think they are finding they're just like everybody else but if you look at six thirty six it lays out quite carefully what the authorities of the magistra judges are going to be in six thirty six a and it also provides a first for the consensus so i think one of the questions is what's the starting point is it they can act unless the authority is taken away from them or is it they can't act unless the authority is given to them because if it's the first of those your argument might be correct but if it's understood that you have to use an article three judge unless there's permission in six thirty six somewhere i don't see the permission even though screening is a preliminary thing it can yield a judgment on the merits namely dismissal for failure  operates it seems to me that the idea is everybody has to be ok with it and you aren't there yet and so i mean obviously there are all sorts of things in the federal rules and statutes that acknowledge party status to people who aren't served through a rule for a way if that weren't the case and certainly other rules as well so i guess in the face of ambiguity which way do you go and it's not even ambiguity in with the lack of of you know a section in a you know adding to the list in a number six the power to dismiss a case upon i have piece screening you know that would be fine if that were there and maybe that would be consistent with the constitution for all i know but the supreme court has been very fussy about this area over the here that's what worries me about your position sure honor and maybe i'll take i think there's a couple questions there the first one is we would say that the term party use and i think this is supported by the case law in the dictionary at can me party so you see the word parties it can be read as a singular if it makes sense in context and so we propose that it does make sense in the present context of screening for the reasons we discovered it doesn't make sense he would have to actually say and see one that there was sort of an implicit clause at the end that sa whenever some whenever other parties haven't been served because you would agree i take it that if everybody's been served the word parties and see one has to mean everyone yes your honor so you're but you're  ering this with a lot of extra language i suppose that's one way of looking at your honor i think another way perhaps is that you would read upon consent of the party right and then don't want to do that take it you don't want to do that to undo the normal six thirty six c prize says your clients the state of wisconsin other people are sued all the time and you want to have your say about whether it's going to be a district court judge or magistrate judge absolutely your honor and  i think and maybe then that this is the i guess the nuance of our argument that you wouldn't interpret party or parties singular or plural for all circumstances one way or the other it would change it sometimes it would be plural sometimes singular singular isn't that a little unsettling  i think it's the nature of party the word party and think that some of the cases talk about that as if it is something that can mean all kinds of things you could not even in other cases the interpretation of a party your honor no what think it's true that you have to authorize the magistrate to do this at all so it's part of the initial language you're looking at it has to be specifically designated to exercise just just such a jurisdiction by the district court so that article three judge has to we don't think there is one and we think that that the will first the cases why was there an article three issue and when i mean that case had an article in a territorial judge only one was a panel of three judges far as i know that i  you know what what was the harm well well your honor i think that's a different circumstance and i'll try to explain why i stand at that the same the very same arguments can be made about that as were discussed here i know circuit and some of the distinction might be this and so up up taking two steps first is that i think i don't think there's a disagreement on this that you're right an article three judges for the most part personal and the cases talk about that the the wellness international case the garrus case from this court it's usually judiciary what they should be doing and but and i think that framework when that would that line would be crossed isn't here and that's because the magistrates are hired by the district judges they can be fired by them and as we just discussed the district judge the article three you know they would in their suitcases and briefs that there's a bit this court's hands case which is which was a bit under nine hundred fifty eight for inmates but it has the same screen mechanism in the current yeah i was there was the one other case in which is something we called i think to the part i don't think it was looked at all that carefully actually at the time so in any event we're looking at it now so we're listening to you so i'll talk a bit about my our big picture argument and we have it in the briefs or i won't i won't belabor it but  the idea that screening screening special in the sense that the it's not like a normal dispute where the defendant can lose anything in screening if you get past the defendant has all the defenses can answer can move to dismiss can do all the things you normally do as a party but the commencement date even in a case that has to be screened for purposes of you know did you file in time for the statute of limitations or triggering various other obligations is the date of filing not the day when the long it takes a district court judge to to get over what the magistrate judge whatever screening correct correct going to job done but i would point out that maybe for other purposes in the sense of when a defendant come comes in and a complaint is filed in that sense that i believe this court we're definitely said that i think actually the situation i've worried about more is if the district court judge and let's just say they just record institutionally no matter who it is a magistrate judge article three judge screens and says yeah it looks like there's something here now the defendant gets served and the defendant has already lost a twelve b six motion before ever having the chance to say anything about it and some prisoners and others actually file cases that survive interested it's not necessary ok if there's no further questions out to tom all right thank you very much we appreciate your coming and mr  purpose of the spears hearing the screening procedures so to the extent of there is a tension between these cases i would argue that the priorities the genie case is the one that controls because it's earlier in time and that haynes sort of departed without acknowledging that it was departing as to what that there's no indication that congress for solve the screening situation or congress did percy's things like social security reviews f t c eight cases and those are the types of things that in many instances judge magistrate judges would handle today in congress so you still need to have consent in our final judgment there and so to just go quickly back to the to the other circuit cases i would just point the court to the henry case that got a nice are going to think there are a circuit took the appropriate approach in a term in that consent was necessary and the thing i would like to close on is just what the appropriate disposition here is because we argue in our brief that big picture is the appropriate disposition because although this court has said in some cases that a de facto reporting recommendation remains pending in the district court there's two problems with that here the first is  or district judge mr coleman was proceeding pro se below and so he did not ask for one but obviously if given the opportunity we would ask for one and just to make my final point if i may the time period the fourteen day time period of fall of junctions reports or condition is passed so that's why we believe that they could sure is the appropriate remedy here so that that can't be used against mr coleman thank you all right thank you and thank you as your crown for you and your firm for accepting our