Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/474/140/case.html
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 04:36:02
Document Index: 630941668

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 101', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 2253']

Thomas v. Arn (full text) :: 474 U.S. 140 (1985) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
› Thomas v. Arn
Thomas v. Arn 474 U.S. 140 (1985)
U.S. Supreme CourtThomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)Thomas v. ArnNo. 84-5630Argued October 7, 1985Decided December 4, 1985474 U.S. 140CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
(c) Neither the language nor the legislative history of the Federal Magistrates Act -- which provides that a litigant "may" file objections to Page 474 U. S. 141 the magistrate's report within 10 days and thus obtain de novo review by the district judge, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) -- supports petitioner's argument that the Act precludes the waiver rule adopted by the Sixth Circuit. The Act does not require that the district court review the magistrate's report under some lesser standard than de novo review when no objection is filed. Nor does the obligatory filing of objections under the Act extend only to findings of fact, and not to the magistrate's conclusions of law. Moreover, the waiver of appellate review is not inconsistent with the Act's purposes. Pp. 474 U. S. 148-153.
In 1976, Congress amended § 101 of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, to provide that a United States district judge may refer dispositive pretrial motions, and petitions for writ of habeas corpus, to a magistrate, who shall conduct appropriate proceedings and recommend dispositions. Page 474 U. S. 142 Pub.L. 94-577, 90 Stat. 2729. [Footnote 1] The amendments also provide that any party that disagrees with the magistrate's recommendations "may serve and file written objections" to the magistrate's report, and thus obtain de novo review by the district judge. [Footnote 2] The question presented is whether a court of appeals may exercise its supervisory powers to establish a rule that the failure to file objections to the magistrate's report waives the right to appeal the district court's judgment. We hold that it may.
Petitioner was convicted by an Ohio court in 1978 of fatally shooting her common law husband during an argument. Page 474 U. S. 143 The evidence at trial showed that the victim was a violent man who had beaten petitioner on a number of occasions during the previous three years. Petitioner raised the issue of self-defense at trial, and sought to call two witnesses who would present expert testimony concerning the Battered Wife Syndrome. After conducting a voir dire of these witnesses in chambers, the trial court refused to admit the testimony, on the grounds that the jury did not need the assistance of expert testimony to understand the case, and that the witnesses, who had not personally examined petitioner, could not testify about her state of mind at the time of the shooting.
The Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County reversed. State v. Thomas, 64 Ohio App.2d 141, 411 N.E.2d 845 (1979). The court's syllabus [Footnote 3] concluded that testimony concerning the Battered Wife Syndrome is admissible "to afford the jury an understanding of the defendant's state of mind at the time she committed the homicide." App. 9. The Ohio Supreme Court, on discretionary review, reversed. State v. Thomas, 66 Ohio St.2d 518, 423 N.E.2d 137 (1981). The court held that the testimony was irrelevant to the issue of self-defense, and that its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value. Having exhausted state remedies, petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The petition raised, inter alia, the question whether petitioner was denied a fair trial by the trial court's refusal to admit testimony concerning the Battered Wife Syndrome. Petitioner filed a memorandum of law in support of the petition. The District Judge, acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), referred the case, including petitioner's memorandum of law, to a Magistrate. The Magistrate did not hold a hearing. On May 11, 1982, the Magistrate issued his report, containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommending Page 474 U. S. 144 that the writ be denied. On the issue of the Battered Wife Syndrome testimony, the Magistrate concluded that the trial court's failure to admit the proffered testimony had not impaired the fundamental fairness of the trial, and therefore was not an adequate ground for habeas corpus relief. The last page of the Magistrate's report contained the prominent legend:
Petitioner's brief on appeal raised only the issue of the Battered Wife Syndrome testimony. The brief provided no explanation for petitioner's failure to object to the Magistrate's report. Counsel for petitioner waived oral argument, and the case was decided on the briefs. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 728 F.2d 813 (1984). Without reaching the merits, it held that petitioner had waived the right to appeal by failing to file objections to the Magistrate's report. Id. at 815. The court relied upon its prior decision in United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (1981), which established the prospective rule that failure to file timely objections with the district court waives subsequent review in the Page 474 U. S. 145 court of appeals. We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, 470 U.S. 1027 (1985), and we now affirm.
"* * * *" "However, we give our ruling only prospective effect because rules of procedure should promote, not defeat the ends of justice . . . ."
The nature of the rule and its prospective application demonstrate that the court intended to adopt a "rul[e] of procedure," id. at 950, in the exercise of its supervisory powers. Later opinions of the Sixth Circuit make it clear that the court views Walters in this way. See Patterson v. Mintzes, 717 F.2d 284, 286 (1983) ("In Walters . . . , this Court promulgated [a] rule of waiver"); United States v. Martin, 704 F.2d 267, 275 (1983) (Jones, J., concurring) (characterizing Walters Page 474 U. S. 146 as "[r]ulemaking through the exercise of supervisory powers"). Thus, petitioner's first contention -- that the Court of Appeals has refused to exercise the jurisdiction that Congress granted it -- is simply inaccurate. The Court of Appeals expressly acknowledged that it had subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner's appeal. 728 F.2d at 814. The Sixth Circuit has also shown that its rule is not jurisdictional by excusing the procedural default in a recent case. See Patterson v. Mintzes, supra, (considering appeal on merits despite pro se litigant's late filing of objections). We therefore conclude that neither the intent nor the practical effect of the Sixth Circuit's waiver rule is to restrict the court's own jurisdiction. [Footnote 4]
"procedures deemed desirable from the viewpoint of sound judicial practice although Page 474 U. S. 147 in nowise commanded by statute or by the Constitution."
Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 414 U. S. 146 (1973); see also Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 407 U. S. 530, n. 29 (1972). [Footnote 5] Had petitioner failed to comply with a scheduling order or pay a filing fee established by a court of appeals, that court could certainly dismiss the appeal. Cf. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626 (1962) (recognizing "inherent power" of court to dismiss case for want of prosecution). The fact that the Sixth Circuit has deemed petitioner to have forfeited her statutory right to an appeal is not enough, standing alone, to invalidate the court's exercise of its supervisory power. The Sixth Circuit's decision to require the filing of objections is supported by sound considerations of judicial economy. The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues -- factual and legal -- that are at the heart of the parties' dispute. [Footnote 6] The Sixth Circuit's rule, by precluding appellate Page 474 U. S. 148 review of any issue not contained in objections, prevents a litigant from "sandbagging" the district judge by failing to object and then appealing. Absent such a rule, any issue before the magistrate would be a proper subject for appellate review. This would either force the court of appeals to consider claims that were never reviewed by the district court, or force the district court to review every issue in every case, no matter how thorough the magistrate's analysis and even if both parties were satisfied with the magistrate's report. Either result would be an inefficient use of judicial resources. In short,
Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (1983). However, Page 474 U. S. 149 we need not decide whether the Act mandates a waiver of appellate review absent objections. We hold only that it does not forbid such a rule.
Petitioner first argues that a failure to object waives only de novo review, and that the district judge must still review the magistrate's report under some lesser standard. However, § 636(b)(1)(C) simply does not provide for such review. This omission does not seem to be inadvertent, because Congress provided for a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review of a magistrate's disposition of certain pretrial matters in § 636(b)(1)(A). See Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (CA1 1980). Nor Page 474 U. S. 150 does petitioner point to anything in the legislative history of the 1976 amendments mandating review under some lesser standard. We are therefore not persuaded that the statute positively requires some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.
It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings. The House and Senate Reports accompanying the 1976 amendments do not expressly consider what sort of review the district court should perform when no party objects to the magistrate's report. See S.Rep. No. 94-625, pp. 9-10 (1976) (hereafter Senate Report); H.R.Rep. No. 94-1609, p. 11 (1976) (hereafter House Report). There is nothing in those Reports, however, that demonstrates an intent to require the district court to give any more consideration to the magistrate's report than the court considers appropriate. [Footnote 9] Moreover, the Subcommittee Page 474 U. S. 151 that drafted and held hearings on the 1976 amendments had before it the guidelines of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts concerning the efficient use of magistrates. Those guidelines recommended to the district courts that
See Jurisdiction of United States Magistrates, Hearings on S. 1283 before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 24 (1975) (emphasis added) (hereafter Senate Hearings). The Committee also heard Judge Metzner of the Southern District of New York, the chairman of a Judicial Conference Committee on the administration of the magistrate system, testify that he personally followed that practice. See id. at 11 ("If any objections come in, . . . I review [the record] and decide it. If no objections come in, I merely sign the magistrate's order"). [Footnote 10] The Page 474 U. S. 152 Judicial Conference of the United States, which supported the de novo standard of review eventually incorporated in § 636(b)(1)(C), opined that in most instances no party would object to the magistrate's recommendation, and the litigation would terminate with the judge's adoption of the magistrate's report. See Senate Hearings, at 35, 37. Congress apparently assumed, therefore, that any party who was dissatisfied for any reason with the magistrate's report would file objections, and those objections would trigger district court review. [Footnote 11] There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report to which no objections are filed. It did not preclude treating the failure to object as a procedural default, waiving the right to further consideration of any sort. We thus find nothing in the statute or the legislative history that convinces us that Congress intended to forbid a rule such as the one adopted by the Sixth Circuit. Nor is the waiver of appellate review inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. The Act grew out of Congress' desire to give district judges "additional assistance" in dealing with a caseload that was increasing far more rapidly than the number of judgeships. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U. S. 261, 423 U. S. 268 (1976). [Footnote 12] Congress did not intend district judges "to devote a Page 474 U. S. 153 substantial portion of their available time to various procedural steps, rather than to the trial itself." House Report at 7. Nor does the legislative history indicate that Congress intended this task merely to be transferred to the court of appeals. It seems clear that Congress would not have wanted district judges to devote time to reviewing magistrate's reports except to the extent that such review is requested by the parties or otherwise necessitated by Article III of the Constitution. We now turn to the latter question.
We find that argument untenable. The waiver of appellate review does not implicate Article III, because it is the Page 474 U. S. 154 district court, not the court of appeals, that must exercise supervision over the magistrate. Even assuming, however, that the effect of the Sixth Circuit's rule is to permit both the district judge and the court of appeals to refuse to review a magistrate's report absent timely objection, we do not believe that the rule elevates the magistrate from an adjunct to the functional equivalent of an Article III judge. The rule merely establishes a procedural default that has no effect on the magistrate's or the court's jurisdiction. The district judge has jurisdiction over the case at all times. He retains full authority to decide whether to refer a case to the magistrate, to review the magistrate's report, and to enter judgment. Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard. Indeed, in the present case, the District Judge made a de novo determination of the petition despite petitioner's failure even to suggest that the Magistrate erred. The Sixth Circuit's rule, therefore, has not removed "the essential attributes of the judicial power,'" Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 458 U. S. 77 (1982) (plurality opinion), quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 285 U. S. 51 (1932), from the Article III tribunal. [Footnote 14] Page 474 U. S. 155
Affirmed. Page 474 U. S. 156
A habeas applicant is entitled to appeal only the final order of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. I fail to understand how petitioner could have waived her right to appeal a final order before that order was rendered. The majority attempts to justify this result by characterizing the Sixth Circuit's rule as a simple exercise of its supervisory powers. Page 474 U. S. 157 While I do not question the Court of Appeals' authority to promulgate reasonable procedural rules, I would not sanction a rule that imposes a penalty for failure to file objections beyond that contemplated by Congress. Because the Sixth Circuit's "supervisory rule" unlawfully deprives petitioner of her statutory right to appeal the District Court's judgment, I respectfully dissent.
The waiver rule adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is neither required nor prohibited by the Federal Magistrates Act. As a product of that court's supervisory power, it need not conform to the practice followed in other circuits. Hence, despite the appearance of a conflict among the circuits, the interest in uniform interpretation of federal law is not implicated, and this Court might have been well advised simply to deny the petition for certiorari. Since the Court has elected to review the application of the Sixth Circuit's rule, however, I believe it should modify it in one respect. As the Court demonstrates, in most cases, it is surely permissible to treat the failure to file timely objections to a magistrate's report as a waiver of the right to review, not only in the district court, but in the court of appeals as well. But our precedents often recognize an exception to waiver rules -- namely, when a reviewing court decides the merits of an issue even though a procedural default relieved it of the duty to do so. See, e.g., Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 471 U. S. 815-816 (1985) (reaching merits despite failure to object to jury instruction because Court of Appeals over looked default); On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747, 343 U. S. 750, n. 3 (1952) ("Though we think the Court of Appeals would have been within its discretion in refusing to consider the point, their having passed on it leads us to treat the merits also"). It is for this reason that we may disregard a procedural default in a state trial court if a state appellate court addresses the federal issue. E.g., 442 U. S. Page 474 U. S. 158 Allen, 442 U. S. 140, 442 U. S. 149 (1979); Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 360 U. S. 436-437 (1959). In such cases, the reasons for relying on the procedural default as a bar to further review are generally, if not always, outweighed by the interest in having the merits of the issue correctly resolved. A similar exception should be recognized in this case. When the district court elects to exercise its power to review a magistrate's report de novo and renders an opinion resolving an issue on the merits, there is no danger of "sandbagging" the district judge. See ante at 474 U. S. 148. Moreover, if the district judge has concluded that there is enough merit in a claim to warrant careful consideration and explanation despite the litigant's failure to object before the magistrate, the interest in minimizing the risk of error should prevail over the interest in requiring strict compliance with procedural rules. Because the District Court decided the merits of petitioner's claim in this case, I would hold that she has a right to review in the Court of Appeals. To that admittedly limited extent, I respectfully dissent.