Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

729 F.2d 308

Docket No. 84-3112.

Trufant v. Autocon, Inc.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 21, 1984.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1984-03-21

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“consent must be explicit, and will not be casually inferred from the conduct of the parties”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Parks v. Collins, Withrow v. Roell

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass'n · United States v. Renfro · Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-03-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably King v. Ionization International, Inc. (1987), Wilhelm v. Rotman (2012)

56 federal appellate ·

6201984199020002010decided

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 →

¶1*309Leroy L. Trufant, pro se.

¶2Jones, Walker, Waecheter, Poitevent, Carriere & Denegre, David Israel, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.

¶3Before TATE, GARWOOD and HIGGIN-BOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

¶4BY THE COURT:

¶5IT IS ORDERED that the motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal is granted on the ground that there is no final appealable order before the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

¶6This Title VII discrimination action was referred by the district court to a U.S. magistrate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 53. The magistrate made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended that plaintiff’s suit be dismissed. As of the date that this appeal was filed in this court, the district court had not acted on the findings and recommendation of the magistrate.

¶7It is well established that the findings of a magistrate may not ordinarily be appealed directly to the Court of Appeals. United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 921, 101 S.Ct. 321, 66 L.Ed.2d 149 (1980); Kendall v. Davis, 569 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Cline, 566 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir.1978). This general rule is overcome only when the magistrate acts under a specific statutory provision authorizing direct appeal to the circuit court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), a district court, with the voluntary consent of the parties, may authorize a magistrate to conduct proceedings and enter final judgment in a case; such judgment is then appealable to the circuit court directly, id.§ 636(c)(3).

¶8We conclude that the reference to the magistrate made by the district court was not made under § 636(c)(1), and hence is not covered by § 636(c)(3). The district judge stated that the reference was being made under Title VII’s magistrate provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5), and Rule 53. Neither of these sections provides for a final judgment to be entered by the magistrate, and Rule 53 explicitly provides for review of the magistrate’s findings and recommendations by the district court.

¶9Further, we find no evidence that the parties consented to have the magistrate enter a final judgment. We have held before that such consent must be explicit, and will not be casually inferred from the conduct of the parties. Glover v. Alabama Bd. of Corrections, 660 F.2d 120 (5th Cir.1981); accord, Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 690 F.2d 717 (9th Cir.1982).

¶10In sum, the magistrate’s findings are not a final appealable order, and the district court, too, has yet to enter a final judgment in this case. It follows that plaintiff’s appeal must be dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction.

¶11APPEAL DISMISSED.

/729/f2d/308 · .json · Public domain