Filed: Aug. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge. This case is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Scofield's Reports and Recommendations (the "R&Rs") [143, 167, 169]. No objections to the R&Rs have been filed. A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright , 681 F.2d 732 , 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright , 677 F.2d 404 , 408 (5th Cir. 1982)). 1 Where no objection to the R&R is made, i
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge. This case is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Scofield's Reports and Recommendations (the "R&Rs") [143, 167, 169]. No objections to the R&Rs have been filed. A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright , 681 F.2d 732 , 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright , 677 F.2d 404 , 408 (5th Cir. 1982)). 1 Where no objection to the R&R is made, it..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge.
This case is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Scofield's Reports and Recommendations (the "R&Rs") [143, 167, 169]. No objections to the R&Rs have been filed.
A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1982)).1 Where no objection to the R&R is made, it need only be reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).2 After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&Rs and finds no plain error in its factual or legal conclusions. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS AS ITS ORDER the R&Rs [143, 167, 169].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981, as well as all decisions issued after that date by the Unit B panel of the former Fifth Circuit. Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982); see also United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 n.4 (11th Cir. 2009) (discussing continuing validity of Nettles).
2. Macort addressed only the standard of review applied to a magistrate judge's factual findings; however, the Supreme Court has held that there is no reason for the district court to apply a different standard of review to a magistrate judge's legal conclusions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Thus, district courts in this circuit have routinely applied a clear-error standard to both. See Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F.Supp.2d 1366, 1373-74 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (collecting cases). By contrast, the standard of review on appeal distinguishes between the factual findings and legal conclusions. See Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1440 (11th Cir. 1991) (when magistrate judge's findings of fact are adopted by district court without objection, they are reviewed on appeal under plain-error standard, but questions of law remain subject to de novo review).
