Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

569 F.2d 1330

Docket No. 77-2512

Kendall v. Davis

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 23, 1978.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1978-03-23

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Because no final decision of a district court has been rendered in this case and because no other statute authorizes direct appeal of the magistrate's decision under these circumstances, we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Carmena v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 406

“but his findings and recommendations are to be supervised and reviewed by the district court, which then enters judgment. F.R.Civ.P. 53(e). The magistrate's decision prior to the district court's review is not a”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Carmena v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 406

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3401 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · United States v. Haley · United States v. Cline

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1978-03-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Trufant v. Autocon, Inc. (1984), United States v. Forcellati (1979)

23 federal appellate ·

16019781980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2William E. Mitch, Earl T. Brown, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., Robert D. Nesler, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellants.

¶3Frank O. Burge, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶4Before, MORGAN, CLARK, and TJOF-LAT, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7The defendants appeal a judgment entered by a United States magistrate. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

¶8The magistrate heard this ease pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(2), which allows a district judge to “designate a magistrate to serve as a special master in any civil case, upon consent of the parties, without regard to the provisions of rule 53(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.” This statute does not authorize the entry of final judgment by a magistrate; rather, Section 636(b)(1) provides both for close supervision of the magistrate and for review of his findings and recommendations by the dis-*1331trict court. Rule 53(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs this review.1

¶9Our jurisdiction extends only so far as Congress has provided by statute. Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, we have “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” Because no final decision of a district court has been rendered in this case and because no other statute authorizes direct appeal of the magistrate’s decision under these circumstances, we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See United States v. Cline, 566 F.2d 1220 (1978), citing United States v. Haley, 541 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1974). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice to a future appeal following the district court’s review of the magistrate’s report and entry of final judgment by the district court. The appeal is

¶10DISMISSED.

/569/f2d/1330 · .json · Public domain