Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08083/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08083-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Margaret A. Bath
Appellant
Timothy P. Bath
Appellant
Insurance Company of North America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L ~ D 

Unitoo Statc!l Co~ qf AppcrJs 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tcr,t.1' C1rcmt 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, 

Appellee , 

v . 

TIMOTHY P. BATH and 

MARGARET A. BATH, 

Appell2.nts. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MAY 2 71992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No . 90-8083 

) (D.C. No. C88-0353-J) 

) (D. Wyoming) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY' Circuit Judge, MCWILLIAMS' Circuit Judge, and 

CAUTHRON, District Judge**. 

The issue addressed in this appeal is whether appellants 

Timothy P. Bath and Margaret A. Bath have waived their right to 

challenge an award of attorney's fees and costs to appellee 

Insurance Company of North America ("INA") . The trial court 

adopted the findings and recommendati ons of the magistrate judge in 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 

**Honorable Robin J . Cauthron, United States District Judge for 

the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-8083 Document: 010110254325 Date Filed: 05/27/1992 Page: 1
an order that noted appellants had neither objected to nor appealed 

from the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 

The underlying action was resolved in favor of INA in an order 

entered December 6, 1989, where the trial court granted INA I s 

motion for summary judgment on its indemnity claim and awarded INA 

$20,979.88. The Baths did not appeal this ruling. In a motion 

filed January 10, 1990, INA requested attorneys fees in the amount 

of $22,723.42 and $2,089.95 in costs. This motion was referred to 

a magistrate judge, who conducted a hearing on March 13, 1990, and 

forwarded findings and recommendations to the district judge on 

April 17, 1990. Although there is no dispute that all counsel 

received copies of the findings and recommendation, neither the 

magistrate judge nor the Clerk of Court { in the District of 

Wyoming, these offices are held by the same individual) notified 

the parties of their right or duty to object to the magistrate 

judge's findings and recommendations, and no appeal or objection 

was filed. 

The magistrate judge's findings and recommendations were 

adopted by the trial court in an order noting the Baths' failure to 

object. This order was entered July 12, 1991 and was followed six 

days later by the Baths' motion for a de novo determination. In an 

order entered September 12, 1990, the trial court again noted that 

during the three-month period before the magistrate judge's 

findings and recommendations were adopted the Baths had failed to 

object, despite the fact they were represented by counsel charged 

with notice and knowledge of the federal and local rules. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-8083 Document: 010110254325 Date Filed: 05/27/1992 Page: 2
INA has moved to dismiss the Baths' appeal and asserts the 

Baths' failure to object to the magistrate judge's findings and 

recommendations constitutes a waiver of their right to appeal. In 

Niehaus v. Kansas Bar Association, 793 F.2d 1159 (10th Cir. 1986), 

we held that an appellate court will not entertain appeals of a 

magistrate judge's findings unless appellant has first raised his 

objections before the district court. Niehaus would clearly 

require dismissal of this appeal. See also Thomas v. Arn, 4 7 4 U. s. 

140, 156 (1985) ("court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning 

appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a 

magistrate judge's recommendation, upon the filing of objections 

with the district court identifying those issues on which further 

review is desired."). The Baths argue they were relieved of the 

necessity of appeal to the District Court by the local rules. 

A court may prescribe rules for the conduct of its business. 

28 U.S.C. §2071 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 83. Under Local Wyoming Court 

Rules, an objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation on a 

dispositive matter (or an appeal of a non-dispositive matter) 

requires action within ten (10) days. Local Court Rule 611. The 

same time requirement is defined in 28 u.s.c. §636(b) (1) and 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). It appears to be the Baths' argument that 

no appeal was required because the attorney fee motion was neither 

dispositive nor non-dispositive and thus did not fall within the 

time requirements for appeal defined in Local Rule 611. 

A motion for attorney's fees, even if post-judgment, should be 

considered a dispositive motion triggering the procedure and 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-8083 Document: 010110254325 Date Filed: 05/27/1992 Page: 3
standard of review found at 28 u.s.c. §636(b) (1). See Colorado 

Bldg. & Const. Trades Council v. B. B. Andersen Const. Co .• Inc., 

879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989); see also Weatherby v. Sec. of 

Health and Human Services, 654 F.Supp . 96 (E . D. Mich. 1987) (postjudgment attorney fee order entered by magistrate set aside as 

outside scope of §636(b) (1) (A)); cf. Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow 

Indus., 847 F.2d 1458 (10th Cir. 1988) (award of attorney fees as 

discovery sanction is non-dispositive). Thus the Baths were 

required to file their objections to the findings and 

recommendation of the magistrate judge within 10 days, not only 

under Local Rule 6ll(b), but also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and 

§636(b) (1). We have searched the record and find no justification 

to hold that the Baths first presented an appeal or objection to 

the trial court. In an attempt to distinguish Niehaus, the Baths 

state they raised "their objections before the District Court in 

both correspondence and by motion for de novo consideration." 

Brief of Appellants, filed May 10, 1991, at p. 48. However, this 

statement appears to be in conflict with statements made in other 

pleadings. See Appellants' Traverse to Plaintiff-Appellee' s Motion 

to Dismiss, filed September 7, 1990 (1[7: "defendants-appellants 

respectfully contend here, as in the District Court, that Local 

Court Rule 611(a) did not require an appeal to be taken from the 

Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations;" 1[9: "the defendantsappellants did not believe an appeal or the formal submission of 

written objections to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations 

was necessary") . The trial court held that the Bath's de novo 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-8083 Document: 010110254325 Date Filed: 05/27/1992 Page: 4
motion was both untimely and failed to "identify the portions of 

the Magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations to which 

objection is made" (Order, September 12, 1990, pp. 3-4, Doc. 116). 

While there were communications with the trial court, these cannot 

be construed as rising to the level of an objection to, or appeal 

of, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. See May 

30 1990, letter from Bath's counsel to Hon. Alan B. Johnson, Att. 

E to Appellants• Brief filed May 10, 1991 (letter makes reference 

to attorney fees but does not state an intention to object or 

appeal); July 10, 1990, letter from INA's counsel to Hon. Alan B. 

Johnson, Att. A to Appellants' Brief filed May 10, 1991 (noting 

Baths did not object to the findings and recommendations and 

requesting entry of order adopting same). These communications 

demonstrate that the Baths had notice of the magistrate judge's 

findings and recommendations, but did not file objections or an 

appeal. 

The Bathes next assert their appeal was not required because 

no notice of the necessity of appeal was given them as required by 

Local Rule 611(b). We find this notice provision applies only to 

unrepresented parties. In Moore v. United states, 950 F.2d 656 

( 10th Cir. 1991) , we joined other circuits in requiring the 

magistrate judge's order to advise a prose litigant of the time in 

which any objection must be filed, as well as the effect of the 

failure to do so. Wyoming's Local Court Rule 611(b) is no more 

than a reiteration of the holding in Moore. It does not relieve 

represented parties of the duty to appeal the magistrate judge's 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-8083 Document: 010110254325 Date Filed: 05/27/1992 Page: 5
recommendation. To find otherwise would put the Local Rule in 

contravention of the statute and Federal Rules, which is 

prohibited. 

§636 (b) ( 1), 

28 u.s.c. §2071(a). There is no dispute that 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and Local Court Rule 611 are 

clear in requiring objections or an appeal of a magistrate judge's 

pronouncement within ten days. 

We find nothing in the Local Rules which relieved the Baths of 

the necessity of appeal of the magistrate judge's findings and 

recommendation. 

the appeal. 

Niehaus clearly applies to require dismissal of 

Accordingly, INA' s Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the 

appeal is dismissed. 

Entered for the Court 

ROBIN J. CAUTHRON 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-8083 Document: 010110254325 Date Filed: 05/27/1992 Page: 6