McKown v. United States Department of Agriculture ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 14 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOE CRAIG MCKOWN;
SHANNA BURT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 03-2212
(D.C. No. CIV-02-743-LCS/KBM)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT (D. N.M.)
OF AGRICULTURE; FARM
SERVICE AGENCY; NANCY L.
SMITH, Acting Director,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , ANDERSON , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiffs-appellants and siblings, Joe Craig McKown and Shanna Burt,
appeal the final decision of the United States Department of Agriculture (the
USDA) finding that they have an obligation to refund $10,598 in overpayment
under a Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) and that no further payments were
due to either plaintiff. Plaintiffs-appellants contest the validity of the USDA’s
determination that they must refund the money after the agency found that they
failed to complete the appropriate forms in a timely way after filing for
bankruptcy. In their arguments, plaintiffs-appellants allege that the agency misled
them about what forms they were required to complete and that it acted in bad
faith during a failed mediation.
The parties appeared by consent and designation before a magistrate judge
for the District of New Mexico. The magistrate judge found that the USDA’s
actions had not violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the agency
was not bound by conditions that it had accepted during the course of failed
mediation.
We may hear appeals from the decisions of magistrate judges entered by
consent and designation, see Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B.
Andersen Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989), and we review
conclusions of law de novo. See Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516 (1994).
-2-
Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we AFFIRM the decision
of the magistrate judge for substantially the reasons stated in his decision. See
McKown v. United States Dep’t of Agric., No. CIV 02-0743 (D.N.M. July 7,
2003).
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-