Case Name: Arthur E. CUTLER, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-30
Citations: 23 F. App'x 12
Docket Number: No. 00-2413
Parties: Arthur E. CUTLER, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 12–13

Head Matter:
Arthur E. CUTLER, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 00-2413.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 30, 2001.
Arthur E. Cutler, on brief pro se.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Mary Elizabeth Carmody, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellees.
Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Torruella and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After carefully reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the decision below.
The appellant argues that because the district court neither recited in its order that it had reviewed the record de novo, nor issued its own findings and rulings, we must conclude that it erroneously allowed the magistrate to finally decide the summary judgment motion without the appellant's consent. 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Nothing in the relevant statute or rule, however, requires the court to issue its own findings or explain the scope of its review. Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America (East), Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir.1995).
The appellant also argues that summary judgment was improper because of a factual dispute concerning whether a researcher properly invoked his right to withhold information by objecting to disclosure within the five days allotted by 45 C.F.R. § 5.65(d)(2). As the magistrate stated, however, the date of the researcher's objection was irrelevant since the government could itself determine to withhold the information under 45 C.F.R. § 5.65(e)(1).
None of the appellant's remaining objections rise to the level of appellate argument. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1,17 (1st Cir.1990).
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).