Opinion ID: 36456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: cretionary power to control the expeditious

Text: Wright’s pro se brief raises, inter alia, a disposition of docketed cases that appellate jurisdictional question on appeal. She asks, courts have long recognized to be an inherent “Whereas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 636(c) and attribute of federal district courts. Id. FurFed. R. Civ. P. 73, a Title VII Civil Case is thermore, FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) provides that referred to a Magistrate Judge; and where the for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to referral does not appear to specifically and comply with these rules or any order of the directly grant the Magistrate Judge the author- court, a defendant may move for dismissal of ity to make and enter final ruling and judg- an action or of any claim. ments on dispositive pretrial motions such as the exercise of contempt powere, may a Mag- An appeal from an involuntary dismissal istrate Judge exercise such contempt powers, with prejudice for failure to prosecute or to without abuse of discretion and the statue obey the orders and rules of the district court [sic]? is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Morris v. Ocean Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 248, 251 (5th Cir. The parties, however, consented to the ex- 1984). The magistrate judge granted defen- ercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. dants’ motion to compel and ordered Wright Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), upon consent of to respond to written discovery requests withthe parties, a magistrate judge may conduct all in seven days and to submit to a deposition proceedings in a civil matter and may order the scheduled to take place within thirty days. In entry of judgment; the magistrate judge acts in its order, the court warned Wright that failing the capacity of a district judge. McGinnis v. to comply in any respect would put her at risk Shalala, 2 F.3d 548, 551 (5th Cir. 1993). Be- of immediately subjecting herself to the full fore commencing the trial of any civil case in panoply of rules 37(d) and 41(b). which a magistrate judge is to preside pursuant to the authority of § 636(c), the magistrate Wright did not respond or oppose the mojudge must inquire on the record of each party tion, so defendants moved to dismiss on the whether it has filed consent to the magistrate ground that Wright had failed to comply with judge’s presiding and must receive an the order regarding discovery and had failed affirmative answer from each on the record adequately to prosecute her case. The court before proceeding further. Archie v. found that Wright had lost interest in the 3 lawsuit. we were to make an exception to the finality of judgment each time a hardship was visited Wright admits that she consented to the on the unfortunate client of a negligent or referral to a magistrate judge. Accordingly, inadvertent attorney, the meaningful finality of her argument that the judge was without au- judgments would largely disappear. Pryor, thority to dismiss her case with prejudice is 769 F.2d at 289. without merit. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case. We affirm a dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute when (1) there is a clear Wright erroneously cites Eley v. Heckler, record of delay or disobedient conduct by the 734 F.2d 724 (11th Cir. 1984), to challenge plaintiff and (2) the district court has expressly the magistrate judge’s authority to dismiss. determined that lesser sanctions would not Eley states that a magistrate judge is restricted prompt diligent prosecution, or (3) the record to making recommendations under 28 U.S.C. shows that the district court employed lesser § 636(b)(1) when not vested with such sanctions that proved to be futile. Callip, 757 decisionmaking power. Id. The case was dis- F.2d at 519. Although Wright attempts to tinguished in United States v. Johnston, 258 place the responsibility on her attorney, she is F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2001), stating that Congress not without blame. intended magistrate judges to exercise juris- diction on consent of the parties. Specifically, Specifically, her second counsel, Labovitz Congress amended the Federal Magistrates told the court that Wright had failed to reAct in 1979 to include § 636(c) to improve spond to his attempted communication. Conaccess to the federal courts. Id. sequently, Labovitz submitted a motion to withdraw, to which Wright did not respond or In addition, Wright cites United States v. object. In addition, Wright failed to cooperate First Nat’l Bank, 628 F.2d 871 (5th Cir. in the discovery process, causing defendants 1980), to illustrate the potential limitations of irrefutable harm in failing to gather evidence. a magistrate judge’s power. That case, how- The record demonstrates that Wright therefore ever, was a tax dispute concerning civil and intentionally contributed to the delay that criminal matters on which the district court caused actual prejudice to the defendants. Acproperly had jurisdiction. cordingly, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the case with