Opinion ID: 761718
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: counterclaim referral

Text: 16 While these aforementioned authorities make no specific reference to motions for default judgment, we conclude that they, nevertheless, authorize the default judgment action in this case for three reasons. First, a motion for default judgment has been treated by the few other courts that have dealt with the matter as being effectively the same as a motion for involuntary dismissal, which is specifically covered in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). See In re Powderhorn Ski & Development Corp., 194 B.R. 903, 907 n. 2 (D.Colo.1996) (I see no reason to view the entry of default judgment under Rule 55 as a sanction any differently than the involuntary dismissal of an action under Rule 41(b) ....) (citing Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340-41 (10th Cir.1994)); Rouser v. Johnson, 1993 WL 293281 at  1 (E.D.La. July 23, 1993) (Default judgment has the effect of involuntary dismissal for which the magistrate must submit to the district judge a proposed finding and recommendation pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(A).) aff'd by 36 F.3d 90 (5th Cir.1994); cf. Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187, 187 (6th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (denial of motion to proceed in forma pauperis is functional equivalent of involuntary dismissal); Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1463 (10th Cir.1988) (Rule 37 order striking pleadings with prejudice is the equivalent of involuntary dismissal). Since both the district court and the magistrate judge effectively treated the motion for default judgment as a motion for involuntary dismissal by authorizing only a recommendation, not final dispositive action, their actions fall within the § 636 statutory scheme. 17 Second, this court has previously held that the list of dispositive matters in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is nonexhaustive, and thus can include motions that are similar to those listed. See Massey, 7 F.3d at 508; Bennett, 976 F.2d at 997. As stated above, a motion for default judgment is substantially similar to several of the listed motions in the § 636 statutory scheme. 18 Third, although neither subsection (b)(1)(A) nor (b)(1)(B) specifically allow a referral of a motion for default judgment, they do not preclude a magistrate judge from recommending, upon proper reference of a pretrial matter (including a motion question), that a default judgment be entered against a party for good cause determined. See Ackra Direct Marketing v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir.1996) (noting that the magistrate judge issued his report, and recommended that the motion for default judgment should be granted in its entirety). We therefore conclude the referral and actions taken with respect to the default judgment to be valid and to confer jurisdiction for the district court's dispositive action. 8