Opinion ID: 403592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: development of the federal magistrates act

Text: 11 After several years of inquiry, Congress in 1968 enacted the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-639, for the purpose of revising the United States Commissioner System and to cull from the ever-growing workload of the United States District Courts matters that are more desirably performed by a lower tier of judicial officers. H.R.Rep.No.1629, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 12, reprinted in (1968) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4252, 4255. With these improvements in mind, the Act authorized magistrates to exercise those functions formerly exercised by United States Commissioners, and to discharge such additional duties assigned by the district court as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 1 Increasing the overall efficiency of the federal judiciary was the goal in permit(ting) ... the U.S. district courts to assign magistrates, as officers of the courts, a variety of functions ... presently performable only by the judges themselves. S.Rep.No.12, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 11 (1967). 12 The provision of section 636(b) permitting the district court to establish rules which authorize the magistrate to conduct a preliminary review of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses, was the subject of Supreme Court review in Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461, 94 S.Ct. 2842, 41 L.Ed.2d 879 (1974). In Wingo, the Supreme Court held invalid a district court's local rule authorizing a magistrate to hold evidentiary hearings because 28 U.S.C. § 2243 requires the district judge to personally hold these hearings in federal habeas corpus cases. Therefore, by the terms of section 636(b), the local rule was inconsistent with the ... laws of the United States. 2 13 In 1976, Congress substantially amended section 636(b) of the Magistrates Act to supply the congressional intent found wanting by the Supreme Court in Wingo v. Wedding. H.R.Rep.No.1609, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 11, reprinted in (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6162, 6171. Under the current version of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 14 (n)otwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary- 15 .... 16 (B) a judge may also designate a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of (motions to suppress evidence in a criminal case), of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement. 17 The revision clearly recognizes the authority of a district judge to designate a magistrate to conduct evidentiary hearings. The 1976 amendments further added subsection (C) under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which states: 18 The magistrate shall file his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all parties. Within ten days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions. 19 It is this particular addition that is the subject of the instant case. Absent from the statute is any statement as to the effect on appeal of a party's failure to object to the magistrate's findings where those findings are subsequently adopted by the district court. The statute does provide for the district court to amplify on the procedure for filing objections by enacting local rules, and some have done so. 3 In order to establish uniformity throughout this circuit, however, we must interpret section 636(b)(1)(B) and the effect in this circuit of a failure to object to a magistrate's findings. In so doing, we find it appropriate to review the decisions of other appellate courts on this issue.