JAMES LIVAS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
TELEDYNE MOVIBLE OFFSHORE, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court erred by adopting the magistrate's findings without a transcript to review for clear error.
Livas alleged he was fired for racial reasons and his case was referred to a magistrate. The magistrate recommended judgment for the defendant, and th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 53(E)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this Title VII case Livas alleges that he was fired for racial reasons. Without objection his case was referred for trial to a Magistrate as Special Master under F.R. Civ.P. Rule 53. The order of reference required the master to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. After hearing the master recommended that judgment be entered for defendant. No objections to the findings and conclusions were filed.
On January 15, 1979, the court approved the master’s findings and recommendations and adopted them as its opinion and entered judgment for defendant.
The district court has the obligation to determine that the findings of the master are not clearly erroneous. F.R. Civ.P. 53(e)(2); see W.R.B. Corporation v. Gerr, 313 F. 2d 750, 753 (CA5), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 841, 85 S.Ct. 78, 13 L.Ed.2d 47 (1964); General Plywood Corp. v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 362 F.Supp. 700, 704 (S.D.Ga., 1973), aff’d, 504 F. 2d 515 (CA5, 1974). Here the master’s findings were based on credibility choices among witnesses concerning the reasons for Livas’s discharge. The district court could not pass on whether the findings of the master were clearly erroneous without a transcript. The transcript of the proceedings had not then been prepared and was not prepared until March 19.
Livas did not object to the findings of the Magistrate as permitted by Rule 53(e)(2). This does not, however, bar him from raising the independent obligation of the court to determine that the master’s findings are not clearly erroneous.
The transcript of the proceedings before the Master is before us on appeal, but the sufficiency of the master’s findings is an issue that must be determined by the district court in the first instance.
VACATED and REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spaulding v. Univ. OF Wash., 740 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1984)
-
Hudson v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 758 F.2d 1237 (7th Cir. 1985)
-
Cockrham v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 695 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1983)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- W.R.B. Corp. v. Odell Geer, 313 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1963)
- W. R. B. Corp. v. Geer, 379 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1964)
- Shapiro v. Leach, 379 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1964)
- Gen. Plywood Corp. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 504 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1974)