GALVIN
v.
CHILDERS
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 district court affirmed a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss a civil case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court rejected the plaintiff's objection that the parties had not consented to magistrate judge involvement, holding that consent is not required for referral under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B).
The court held that parties' consent is not required to refer a case to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) for issuance of a report and recommendation, and affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
[1] A district court must review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo when a party objects to it.
[2] Parties' consent is not required for a case to be referred to a magistrate judge for the issuance of a report and recommendation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the parties' consent is not required to refer a case to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) for the issuance of a report and recommendation”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that consent is not a prerequisite for magistrate judge referral
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a civil action against defendant Pam Childers in the Northern District of Florida. The case was referred to a magistrate judge for pr…
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.
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) and Plaintiffs' objection (Doc. 8). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that this case should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court did not overlook Plaintiffs' argument that they “DID NOT and DO NOT consent to the magistrate judge's handling any portion of this case," but that argument is frivolous because the parties' consent is not required to refer a case to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) for the issuance of a report and recommendation. See, e.g., Wright v. Sprayberry, 817 F. App'x 725, 729 (11th Cir. 2020); U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Tr. v. Tobin, 754
Page 2 of 2
F. App'x 843, 846 (11th Cir. 2018). And that is what was done in this case. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(E) (explaining that pro se cases filed by non-prisoners will be referred to the magistrate judge "for all proceedings, including ... filing of a report and recommendation containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommending disposition of the case").
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file.
DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2024.
T. KENT WETHERELL, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case No. 3:24-cv-340-TKW-HTC