Opinion ID: 548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intervention Order

Text: Dr. Gerber contends that the government's motion to intervene should have been denied as untimely. He did not, however, specifically object to the magistrate judge's order permitting intervention. His failure to do so strips us of jurisdiction to review the challenged order. Under [28 U.S.C.] § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge may not issue a final order directly appealable to the court of appeals. Properly filed objections resolved by the district court are a prerequisite to our review of a magistrate judge's order under § 636(b)(1)(A). Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562, 566 (10th Cir.1997) (citation omitted). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) (A party may not assign as error a defect in the [magistrate judge's] order not timely objected to.). Dr. Gerber contends that he did raise the untimeliness of the government's intervention before the district court. He cites references to the standards required for intervention that he made in his response to the government's objections to the discovery portion of the magistrate judge's order. We do not agree that this sufficiently presented the issue of intervention. Dr. Gerber should have filed his own objections to the timeliness of the government's motion to intervene. Dr. Gerber also contends that his silence did not operate as a waiver because there was nothing to appeal on the intervention issue in the magistrate judge's ruling. He reasons that the magistrate judge merely permitted the government to intervene for the limited purpose of responding to discovery and did not actually rule on his primary objections to intervention. A careful reading of the order, however, does not bear out this contention. The magistrate judge specifically found that the United States of America ... should be permitted to intervene for the limited purpose of resolving the issues raised in its motion and in Dr. Gerber's motion. Aplt. App. at 321. It granted the motion of the United States of America ... for purposes of seeking clarification or modification of the protective orders. Id. at 322. We therefore conclude that Dr. Gerber's failure to appeal the magistrate judge's order granting intervention deprives us of jurisdiction to hear his appeal of that order.