Opinion ID: 68376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to consider objections

Text: Bernal-Madrigal first asserts the district court erred in failing to consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R. He contends the district court erred by treating his objections to the July 2008 magistrate’s R&R as untimely. BernalMadrigal asserts he filed the objections on August 29, within the time limit ordered by the court, and the court incorrectly docketed them as being filed on September 2. The Government concedes that the objections should have been considered timely. The Government asserts, however, that although the district court had no 6 jurisdiction to consider the Rule 59(e) motion, the district court was able to conduct a de novo review of Bernal-Madrigal’s objections in his request for certification pursuant to the procedure discussed in United States v. Ellsworth, 814 F.2d 613, 614 (11th Cir. 1987). Therefore, it argues there is no need to remand the case for de novo review of Bernal-Madrigal’s objections when the district court has already done so. See In re Holywell Corp., 967 F.2d 568, 571 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating objections to a magistrate judge’s findings are reviewed by the district court de novo). After the filing of an appeal, a defendant who files a motion with the Court of Appeals which should have been filed with the district court must file that motion with the district court. Ellsworth, 814 F.2d at 614. The district court may then: (1) deny the motion on the merits, or (2) certify the motion should be granted, which will permit this Court to consider remanding the case for further proceedings. Id. In denying the motion for certification, the district court explained that, to help the matter on appeal, it issued a Show Cause Order to the Government regarding the S-visa. On review, it found the Government had not failed to comply with its promise, since it did not need to begin the process until April 17, 2009, at the earliest. Accordingly, the district court concluded remanding the case would be 7 unnecessary in light of this determination. See id. The district court also stated Bernal-Madrigal’s other objections were without merit. Thus, any procedural error that may have been committed by the district court originally was rendered harmless, given that the district court later considered the objections and found them meritless.2