Opinion ID: 3012963
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discovery Procedures

Text: Polishan argues that, by holding the Government satisfied its obligation to produce documents, the District Court violated his rights under Brady and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2. The District Court held that Polishan had waived his right to object to discovery procedures by failing to seek reconsideration of the discovery rulings of the Magistrate Judge prior to trial.2 We agree. 1. The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction over this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2. The District Court also concluded that the Magistrate Judge’s holdings were not clearly erroneous. Because we conclude that Polishan waived his right to object, we need not assess the merits of that conclusion. 5 28 U.S.C. § 636 authorizes a district court to appoint a magistrate judge to hear and decide both dispositive and non-dispositive matters. For the former, the statute mandates a specific time within which objections are to be filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (authorizing “any party” to “serve and file written objections” within ten days of service of the findings and recommendations on dispositive motions). In contrast, § 636(b)(1)(A), which authorizes a magistrate judge to hear and decide pretrial non-dispositive matters, provides only that the district court judge “may reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” without specifying particular procedures for that reconsideration. In all federal civil cases, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) requires a party to serve and file objections to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a “pretrial matter not dispositive of a claim or defense” of any party “[w]ithin 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order,” and that “a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.” There is no analogue to this rule in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, but we have noted “the legislative history indicates that procedures are to be established by local rules.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. New Jersey Zinc Co., Inc., 828 F.2d 1001, 1006-07 (3d Cir. 1987) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 94-1609 at 10 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6162, 6170). In the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Local Rule 72.2 provides that in a civil or criminal case any party aggrieved by the order of a magistrate judge may seek review by appealing to the district court within ten days. Thus, in keeping with our conclusion in United Steelworkers, we follow the procedure prescribed by this Local Rule.
We reject the Government’s contention that Polishan’s failure to seek reconsideration under the procedures specified by the Local Rule means that we lack jurisdiction to review the Magistrate Judge’s holdings. We have always treated the defect as non-jurisdictional by allowing for 6 review when “exceptional circumstances” exist. Continental Cas. Co. v. Dominick D’Andrea, Inc., 150 F.3d 245, 251 n.9 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153-54 n.2 (3d Cir. 1993)). If the defect were jurisdictional, of course, we would be unable to review the order even in the most exceptional of circumstances. See United States v. Brown, 299 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Although Brown argues for an equitable exception, the rule is jurisdictional and therefore is not subject to equitable exceptions.”)(citations omitted). While we hold that we shall not review the Magistrate Judge’s rulings because of Polishan’s failure to seek reconsideration under the procedures specified by the Local Rule, we do so because he has waived his right to appellate review, not because our Court lacks jurisdiction to review his claims. Accord United States v. Brown, 79 F.3d 1499, 1504-05 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that waiver is not jurisdictional); 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3070.1 (2d ed. 1997) (“Even where the [waiver] rule applies, it is not jurisdictional.”).3
Because Polishan did not seek reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s discovery ruling under the procedures specified by the Local Rule, he has waived the right to appeal that ruling. It is undisputed that, in civil cases, the right to appeal the ruling of a magistrate judge is waived if 3. We note that an appellate court may lack jurisdiction to review dispositive decisions made by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) because that order is not final. Rather, it is a proposed finding and recommendation that must be accepted, rejected or modified by the district court. Cf. United States v. Ritte, 558 F.2d 926 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding that because a magistrate judge’s order issued under § 636(d) must be referred to a district court it “is not a final appealable order of the district court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291”). In contrast, a non-dispositive decision made by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (as in this case) need not be reviewed by the district court unless objections to the order are raised. As a result, the order of the Magistrate Judge is final without further action by the District Court. Continental Cas. Co., 150 F.3d at 250 (“In a subsection (A) referral, the magistrate judge’s order has the force of law unless appealed. It is final in the sense that it may be appealed.”). 7 reconsideration before the district court is not sought in a timely fashion. United Steelworkers, 828 F.2d at 1008 (“[W]e hold that by failing to object in the district court to the magistrate’s order striking its jury demand, Steelworkers has waived its ability to challenge that order on appeal.”). We have not considered whether the right to appeal is similarly waived in criminal cases. Polishan urges us to follow the Ninth Circuit, the only court to hold that the waiver rule does not apply in criminal cases. United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001).4 The Ninth Circuit relied on the fact that there is no time for objections set out in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and no gap-filler provided in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d at 967. The supervisory powers of the courts to form procedural rules are limited and while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provided a “clear basis in fact and law” justifying a waiver rule in civil cases, there is no clear basis in the criminal context. Id. at 967-68. The Court therefore held that Abonce-Barrera had not waived his right to appeal the