Opinion ID: 403592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: practical considerations served by this decision

Text: 31 In compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the district judge must review the magistrate's findings and recommendations. If objections are filed, the district judge must make a de novo determination, a fresh consideration, of those findings objected to. 5 If no objections are filed, the district judge may accept, reject, 6 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. It is arguable that, when no objections are filed, the parties have accepted the magistrate's report and have consented to his recommendations. If a party has objections, it is essential that he apprise the district court. Judicial efficiency and the objectives of the Magistrates Act dictate that the district judge must be aware of any objections to the report in order to properly comply with the duties under section 636(b)(1)(B). 32 Furthermore, no undue burden exists in requiring an attorney or a pro se litigant to state his objections, if any, to the district court. We are not asking a litigant to give up his right to appeal, only to perfect it. We note that attorneys are officers of the court 7 and are, therefore, in some part implicitly responsible for the efficient operation of the judicial system. Requiring them to assist the district court by stating their objections is a small order. It is even smaller when weighed against the consequences to their clients (or themselves if pro se) of having the circuit court refuse to entertain their arguments on appeal based on error in the magistrate's report. We will not sit idly by and observe the sandbagging of district judges when an appellant fails to object to a magistrate's report in the district court and then undertakes to raise his objections for the first time in this court. 33 It is reasonable to place upon the parties the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specially consider. 8 This rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more time on matters actually contested and produces a result compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act.