United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1637EA

_____________

Michael Chatt, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Sgt. Franklin Tyner; Sgt. Bargin; Sgt. *

Flint, East Arkansas Regional Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction, *

*

Appellees. *

* On Appeal from the United

-------------------------- * States District Court

* for the Eastern District

Michael Chatt, * of Arkansas.

*

Appellant, * [Not to be Published]

*

v. *

*

Bernard Williams, Infirmary Manager, *

East Arkansas Regional Unit; Mollie *

Davis, Nurse, East Arkansas Regional *

Unit, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Dr. Webber, formerly *

employed at East Arkansas Regional *

Unit, currently employed at Lee County *

Cooperative Clinic in Marianna, AR; *

Nurse Hall, East Arkansas Regional *

Unit, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; PHP Healthcare *
-2-

Corporation, East Arkansas Regional *

Unit, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Carmen Lanos-Williams, *

Classification Officer, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, Arkansas Department of *

Correction, *

*

Appellees. *

*

-------------------------- *

*

Michael Chatt, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Charles Pillow, Diagnostic Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

Nurse Bealer, Diagnostic Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

Laura McCarty, Diagnostic Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

Tommie McGarity, Diagnostic Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

Steven F. Blacke, Diagnostic Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 5, 1999

 Filed: May 24, 1999

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD and BEAM, Circuit

Judges.
-3-

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Chatt, a former Arkansas inmate, appeals the District Court’s order

dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing.

We reverse and remand.

Chatt filed three Section 1983 complaints, which were consolidated, asserting

claims relating to his medical care and prison work assignments. Following an

evidentiary hearing, a Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending dismissal, and

Chatt filed timely objections to the report. The District Court overruled the objections

and dismissed the case, stating that it had received the Magistrate Judge’s proposed

findings and recommendations and Chatt’s objections to them, and that “[a]fter careful

review, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations should be, and are,

approved and adopted as this Court’s findings.” Because we are unable to determine

whether the District Court reviewed the record de novo, we do not address the merits

of this case. See Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995); see also

Nabors v. United States, 929 F.2d 354, 355 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).

When a party makes a proper objection to a Magistrate Judge’s recommended

finding, the District Court must review that finding de novo. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); Taylor v. Farrier, 910 F.2d 518, 521 (8th Cir. 1990). De novo review

requires that the Court read a transcript or listen to a tape recording of the evidentiary

hearing. See Jones v. Pillow, 47 F.3d 251, 252 (8th Cir. 1995). Although we may

presume that a de novo review was conducted when the record is silent on the matter,

the presumption is inappropriate if there is affirmative evidence showing that de novo

review was not performed. See id. at 253. In Jones, we determined the presumption

was negated because (1) the hearing transcript was not available to the District Court,

and the Court&s order did not indicate that the Court had listened to a tape recording of
-4-

the hearing; and (2) instead of indicating that it had made a full review of the record,

the Court stated only that it had reviewed the findings and recommendations and the

objections. The presumption has been similarly negated in this case. The District

Court indicated only that it had received the Magistrate Judge’s report and Chatt’s

objections, and that it was adopting the findings and recommendations “[a]fter careful

review.” Significantly, the full transcript of the evidentiary hearing was not filed with

the District Court until after the Court had dismissed the case, and the Court did not

indicate that it had conducted de novo review, that it had listened to a tape recording

of the hearing, or that the tapes were available.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case so that the District

Court may conduct the required de novo review, or state that it has already done so.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.