John D. Dupree v. Warden, Attorney General, State of Alabama ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                Case: 11-12888      Date Filed: 05/07/2013     Page: 1 of 25
    [PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    __________________________
    No. 11-12888
    __________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cv-00964-KOB-RRA
    JOHN D. DUPREE,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    STATE OF ALABAMA,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Alabama
    __________________________
    (May 7, 2013)
    Before WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, * District Judge.
    COX, Circuit Judge:
    *
    Honorable Dudley H. Bowen, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Southern
    District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
    Case: 11-12888     Date Filed: 05/07/2013   Page: 2 of 25
    The issue on appeal is whether the district court violated the rule laid down
    in Clisby v. Jones, 
    960 F.2d 925
     (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc). In Clisby, this court
    instructed district courts to resolve all claims for relief presented in a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition for a writ of habeas corpus regardless of whether relief is granted
    or denied. In this case, the district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
    recommendation in full and dismissed John D. Dupree’s petition.               But the
    magistrate judge’s report and recommendation did not mention one of the many
    claims Dupree presented in his petition. Dupree did not object to the magistrate
    judge’s failure to address this claim, so the district judge was not put on notice that
    one of Dupree’s claims had not been addressed.            Regrettably, however, our
    precedent compels us to conclude that the district court violated Clisby by failing
    to address the claim the magistrate judge overlooked. Despite a party’s failure to
    object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions on legal issues (or, as in this case, the
    failure of the magistrate judge to address legal issues), our precedent does not
    foreclose a party’s ability to seek de novo review on appeal. We therefore vacate
    the district court’s judgment in this case and remand. Having decided this case,
    however, we suggest that this court should, in the exercise of its supervisory
    powers, adopt a new rule (to operate prospectively) that attaches consequences to
    the failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
    2
    Case: 11-12888     Date Filed: 05/07/2013    Page: 3 of 25
    I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    In October 2004, John Dupree, represented by Patricia Granger, pleaded
    guilty to several state law drug-related offenses in an Alabama state court. Before
    sentencing, Dupree hired a new attorney, Dani Bone. Bone moved to set aside
    Dupree’s guilty plea. The trial court denied the motion.
    At sentencing, Dupree, represented by yet another attorney, Roderick Walls,
    again moved to set aside the guilty plea.           The court denied the motion and
    sentenced Dupree to thirty years’ imprisonment. Dupree appealed to the Alabama
    Court of Criminal Appeals. The court affirmed his conviction and denied his
    application for rehearing. Dupree then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama
    for a writ of certiorari, which the court denied.
    In December 2006, Dupree filed a petition for post-conviction relief under
    Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure.           In his Rule 32 petition,
    Dupree alleges, among other things, that his attorneys, Patricia Granger and Dani
    Bone, provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed this
    petition, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal and
    denied his application for rehearing. Dupree then petitioned the Supreme Court of
    Alabama for a writ of certiorari, and the court denied the petition.
    3
    Case: 11-12888     Date Filed: 05/07/2013    Page: 4 of 25
    In May 2009, Dupree, proceeding pro se, filed a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition
    for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court for the Northern District of
    Alabama. (Dkt. 1.) Dupree’s petition alleges three grounds for relief. Only
    ground two is relevant to this appeal. In ground two, Dupree alleges ineffective
    assistance of counsel. (Id. at 5.) When the petition form asks him to describe the
    alleged ineffective assistance, Dupree writes, “See Attached Sheet.” (Id.) In the
    attached sheet, Dupree says that Granger and Bone failed to provide effective
    assistance of counsel. In particular, Dupree writes that Granger failed to inform
    him that the minimum sentence he would receive if he pleaded guilty was thirty
    years. (Id. at 8.) Dupree writes that Bone “failed to go into detail as to exactly
    what it was that Dupree failed to understand about the plea agreement. Instead he
    allowed Dupree, in his inexperience, and under a state of duress to testify on his
    own behalf.” (Id. at 9–10.)
    The Respondents answered Dupree’s petition.            (Dkt. 8.)     The answer
    thoroughly addresses Dupree’s argument that Granger had rendered ineffective
    assistance of counsel. (Id. at 18–21.)     But it only addresses Bone in a footnote,
    saying, “To the extent that [Dupree’s allegations about Bone] could be construed
    as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Dupree is not entitled to relief . . . .”
    (Id. at 21 n.8.) Dupree replied to the answer but failed to mention Bone. (Dkt. 10.)
    4
    Case: 11-12888    Date Filed: 05/07/2013   Page: 5 of 25
    The district court referred the petition to a magistrate judge, and the
    magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss the petition. (Dkt.
    14.)    In the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge concludes that
    Dupree’s claim that Granger had provided ineffective assistance of counsel is
    meritless.    (Id. at 13–18.)    The magistrate judge did not address Dupree’s
    allegations about Bone’s representation.
    At the end of the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge warns the
    parties of the consequences of failing to object to the report and recommendation.
    (Id. at 18–19.) Specifically, the magistrate judge cautions:
    Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and
    recommendations of the magistrate judge’s report shall bar the party
    from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered
    in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual
    findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except
    upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.
    Wainwright, 
    677 F.2d 404
     (5th Cir. [Unit B] 1982). A copy of the
    objections must be served upon all other parties to the action.
    (Id.)
    Dupree filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Dkt. 15.) But
    his objections fail to mention the magistrate judge’s failure to address his
    ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on Bone’s performance.
    5
    Case: 11-12888     Date Filed: 05/07/2013     Page: 6 of 25
    The district court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety,
    (dkt. 16,) and dismissed Dupree’s petition, (dkt. 17).         Dupree then sought a
    certificate of appealability, which this court granted. (Dkt. 23.)
    II. ISSUE ON APPEAL & STANDARD OF REVIEW
    We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of “[w]hether the
    district court violated Clisby by failing to address the allegations in Dupree’s
    memorandum, attached to his § 2254 petition, regarding Bone’s representation.”
    (Dkt. 23.)    We review de novo issues of law presented in a certificate of
    appealability. Medberry v. Crosby, 
    351 F.3d 1049
    , 1053 (11th Cir. 2003).
    III. DISCUSSION
    In Clisby, this court, in the exercise of our supervisory authority, directed
    district courts to resolve all claims for relief raised in a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition
    for a writ of habeas corpus. 
    960 F.2d at 936
    . We defined a claim for relief as “any
    allegation of a constitutional violation.” 
    Id.
     And, we said that if a district court
    fails to resolve all of the claims raised in a habeas petition and dismisses the
    petition, we will vacate the judgment without prejudice and remand the case for
    consideration of all of the remaining claims. 
    Id. at 938
    .
    Here, the district court—through little fault of its own—failed to address one
    of Dupree’s claims for relief: his claim that Bone had provided ineffective
    6
    Case: 11-12888    Date Filed: 05/07/2013    Page: 7 of 25
    assistance of counsel. This claim consists of two sentences found in the middle of
    a fifteen-page memorandum attached to Dupree’s petition. The magistrate judge
    did not address the claim, and Dupree did not object to the magistrate judge’s
    failure to address the claim. Nor did Dupree raise the claim in his reply to the
    Respondents’ answer, which noted that the Respondents did not construe the two
    sentences about Bone to constitute an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The
    district court, with no indication from Dupree that the magistrate judge had failed
    to address Dupree’s claim about Bone, adopted the report and recommendation and
    dismissed Dupree’s habeas petition. So, the district court did not resolve the claim.
    The Respondents argue that Dupree failed to present the claim in the district
    court, and the court’s failure to resolve the claim therefore did not violate the rule
    established in Clisby.
    A habeas petitioner must present a claim in clear and simple language such
    that the district court may not misunderstand it. See Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.,
    
    572 F.3d 1327
    , 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). We liberally construe petitions filed pro se.
    Green v. Nelson, 
    595 F.3d 1245
    , 1254 n.4 (11th Cir. 2010).
    In Rhode v. United States, 
    583 F.3d 1289
    , 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2009), we
    concluded that a pro se litigant had presented his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
    claim before the district court for Clisby purposes when, in his motion to vacate, he
    7
    Case: 11-12888   Date Filed: 05/07/2013   Page: 8 of 25
    “states that his ineffective assistance of counsel claims are described in his
    attached memorandum,” and in his attached memorandum, he sets out the facts
    supporting his claim.
    In this case, Dupree filed his habeas petition pro se. Like the litigant in
    Rhode, Dupree refers to his attached memorandum when asked to describe the
    ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.       (Dkt. 1 at 5.)   In the memorandum,
    Dupree writes, “Bone also failed to go into detail as to exactly what it was that
    Dupree failed to understand about the plea agreement. Instead he allowed Dupree,
    in his inexperience, and under a state of duress to testify on his own behalf.” (Id.
    at 9-10.)   Construing his petition liberally, Dupree presented his ineffective-
    assistance-of-counsel claim about Bone’s performance to the district court.
    Because the district court failed to resolve the claim, the court violated the rule set
    out in Clisby.
    We do not address whether Dupree’s claim is meritorious. Under Clisby,
    our role is to vacate the judgment without prejudice and remand the case to the
    district court for consideration of the unaddressed claim. Moreover, addressing the
    merits of Dupree’s claim exceeds the scope of our review, which is limited to the
    Clisby issue specified in the certificate of appealability. See Murray v. United
    8
    Case: 11-12888     Date Filed: 05/07/2013   Page: 9 of 25
    States, 
    145 F.3d 1249
    , 1250–51 (11th Cir. 1998). We express no opinion on
    whether this claim states a claim upon which relief can be granted.
    Accordingly, we vacate the judgment without prejudice and remand the case
    to the district court to consider Dupree’s ineffective assistance claim concerning
    Bone.
    IV. RECOMMENDATION
    Although Dupree did not object to the magistrate judge’s failure to address a
    legal issue (Dupree’s claim that Bone provided ineffective assistance of counsel) in
    the report and recommendation, we review de novo the legal question of whether
    the district court violated the rule announced in Clisby when it failed to address the
    claim about Bone. Under our precedent, the failure to object limits the scope of
    our appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judge’s factual
    findings. The failure to object to the magistrate judge’s legal conclusions does not
    preclude the party from challenging those conclusions on appeal.              And, if
    challenged on appeal, review is de novo.
    A majority of our sister circuits attach consequences to the failure of a party
    to object to a magistrate judge’s resolution of legal issues as well as factual issues
    (e.g., by limiting the scope of appellate review or prohibiting review altogether).
    9
    Case: 11-12888     Date Filed: 05/07/2013    Page: 10 of 25
    Having decided this case, we urge the court to join the majority of our sister
    circuits and adopt a rule that attaches consequences to the failure to object to either
    factual findings or legal conclusions in a magistrate judge’s report and
    recommendation in civil cases. In this section of the opinion, we discuss (A) our
    current rule on a party’s failure to object to a factual finding or legal conclusion in
    a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, (B) our sister circuits’ rules, and
    (C) why we propose adopting a new rule.
    A. Our Rule
    As we discussed above, under our current rule, a party’s failure to object to
    factual findings and legal conclusions in a magistrate judge’s report and
    recommendation in civil cases has limited consequences. Despite a party’s failure
    to object, we seem to consistently review unobjected-to factual findings for plain
    error, and we review the unobjected-to legal conclusions de novo.
    Our current rule was adopted in Nettles v. Wainwright, 
    677 F.2d 404
     (5th
    Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled by Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n, 
    79 F.3d 1415
     (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute, Federal Magistrates
    Act, Pub. L. No. 111-16, 
    123 Stat. 1608
     (codified as amended at 
    28 U.S.C. § 10
    Case: 11-12888       Date Filed: 05/07/2013      Page: 11 of 25
    636(b)(1) (2009)) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 1
    In Nettles, the former Fifth Circuit considered how it should “treat an appellant’s . .
    . claim of error where the district court accepts a magistrate’s report, unobjected to
    by the appellant.” 
    Id. at 405
    . After discussing other circuits’ rules, the Nettles
    court observed that they “all hold, on one ground or another, that by failing to file
    objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the magistrate’s
    report, a party thereby waives his right to appellate review of his objections.” 
    Id. at 408
    . The Nettles court found “merit” in such a rule. 
    Id.
     However, the court—
    without explanation—adopted a rule that a party’s failure to object to a magistrate
    judge’s report and recommendation does not bar the party from attacking the
    magistrate judge’s legal conclusions on appeal, but that the failure to object does
    limit the scope of appellate review for factual findings. 
    Id.
     Specifically, the court
    said:
    Accordingly, we hold that the failure of a party to file written
    objections to proposed findings and recommendations in a
    magistrate’s report, filed pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. [§] 636(b)(1),
    shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the district judge
    of an issue covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking
    on appeal factual findings accepted or adopted by the district court
    except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Provided,
    however, we also hold that no limitation of the right to appeal . . . and
    1
    Decisions by Unit B of the former Fifth Circuit rendered after October 1, 1981, bind us
    under our prior precedent rule. United States v. Bent, 
    707 F.2d 1190
    , 1193 (11th Cir. 1983).
    11
    Case: 11-12888       Date Filed: 05/07/2013     Page: 12 of 25
    no limitation of the scope of appeal . . . shall result unless the
    magistrate informs the parties that objections must be filed within ten
    days after service of a copy of the magistrate’s report is made upon
    them.
    Id. at 410; accord Hardin v. Wainwright, 
    678 F.2d 589
    , 591 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)
    (“The failure to object no longer waives the right to appeal but simply limits the
    scope of appellate review of factual findings to a plain error review; no limitation
    of the review of legal conclusions results.”).
    Under the rule established in Nettles, this court reviews unobjected-to factual
    findings for “manifest injustice” or “plain error.” See, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp.
    v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 
    996 F.2d 1144
    , 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v.
    Roberts, 
    858 F.2d 698
    , 701 (11th Cir. 1988); LoConte v. Dugger, 
    847 F.2d 745
    ,
    749–50 (11th Cir. 1988); Hardin v. Black, 
    845 F.2d 953
    , 960 (11th Cir. 1988);
    United States v. Slay, 
    714 F.2d 1093
    , 1095 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v.
    Warren, 
    687 F.2d 347
    , 348 (11th Cir. 1982). 2              “This Court equates manifest
    injustice with review for plain error.” United States v. McClendon, 
    195 F.3d 598
    ,
    603 (11th Cir. 1999). Under plain error review, we can correct an error only when
    (1) an error has occurred, (2) the error was plain, (3) the error affected substantial
    rights, and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation
    2
    Slay and Warren (direct criminal appeals) were decided before the adoption of Federal
    Rule of Criminal Procedure 59 in 2005, and they were therefore governed by Nettles.
    12
    Case: 11-12888    Date Filed: 05/07/2013    Page: 13 of 25
    of judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 732, 
    113 S. Ct. 1770
    , 1776 (1993); Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 
    197 F.3d 1322
    , 1329 (11th
    Cir. 1999). The Nettles rule is contrary to our typical standard of review for factual
    findings. Normally, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Levison v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 
    245 F.3d 1321
    ,
    1325 (11th Cir. 2001). Under clear error review, “we will not reverse the district
    court unless we find that after making all credibility choices in favor of the fact-
    finder and reviewing the record as a whole, it is clear that a mistake has been
    made.” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Gibraltar Monetary Corp., 
    575 F.3d 1180
    , 1186 (11th Cir. 2009). However, “[p]lain error review is an extremely
    stringent form of review,” and the clear error standard is easier to satisfy because a
    party does not have to prove that the error affected substantial rights or the
    fairness, integrity, or reputation of the judicial proceeding. Farley, 
    197 F.3d at 1329
    ; see also United States v. Cihak, 
    137 F.3d 252
    , 264 n.7 (5th Cir. 1998)
    (noting that the clear error standard is easier to satisfy than the plain error standard
    of review).     So, reviewing unobjected-to factual findings on the ground of
    “manifest injustice” or “plain error” simply means that we review that finding for
    plain error, not clear error.
    13
    Case: 11-12888    Date Filed: 05/07/2013    Page: 14 of 25
    We note, however, that the Fifth Circuit has overruled Nettles. Douglass, 
    79 F.3d 1415
    . In Douglass, the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, concluded that the rule
    announced in Nettles resulted in “a great waste of judicial resources” and
    “inefficiency and added expense.” 
    Id. at 1419
    . The court also recognized that
    “Nettles offered no explanation for changing [our former] appellate waiver rule . . .
    to a forfeiture rule applicable only to factual findings.” 
    Id. at 1422
    . Reasoning
    that there is no basis for creating an exception for unobjected-to proposed legal
    conclusions, 
    id.
     at 1422–23, the Fifth Circuit overruled Nettles and adopted a new
    rule. The new rule read:
    [A] party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings,
    conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and
    recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy shall
    bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on
    appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
    conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has
    been served with notice that such consequences will result from a
    failure to object.
    
    Id.
     at 1428–29 (footnotes omitted).
    B. Other Circuits’ Rules
    We are in the minority (and most lenient camp) of the circuit courts on this
    issue. Our current rule is in line with the rule of only two circuit courts—the
    Eighth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit reviews unobjected-to
    factual findings for plain error. Griffini v. Mitchell, 
    31 F.3d 690
    , 692 (8th Cir.
    14
    Case: 11-12888    Date Filed: 05/07/2013   Page: 15 of 25
    1994). Like our rule, the failure to object does not waive the party’s right to
    challenge legal conclusions on appeal. Nash v. Black, 
    781 F.2d 665
    , 667 (8th Cir.
    1986). The Ninth Circuit holds that the failure to object waives a party’s right to
    challenge the magistrate judge’s factual findings. Miranda v. Anchondo, 
    684 F.3d 844
    , 848 (9th Cir. 2012). But, like our rule, the failure to file objections to
    conclusions of law does not bar a party from challenging those conclusions on
    appeal. Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 
    708 F.2d 452
    , 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
    The Third and Fifth Circuits have adopted a middle-ground approach. If a
    party fails to object to a report and recommendation’s factual findings or legal
    conclusions, both circuits appear to review those unobjected-to findings and
    conclusions under a plain error standard of review. See Nara v. Frank, 
    488 F.3d 187
    , 194–96 (3d Cir. 2007); Douglass, 
    79 F.3d at
    1428–29.
    Most of our sister circuits have adopted a stricter approach. The First,
    Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have adopted “firm waiver”
    rules and hold that if a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and
    recommendation, that party cannot challenge on appeal the factual findings and
    legal conclusions in the report and recommendation.
    In the First Circuit, if a party fails to object to an issue, the party cannot
    challenge that issue on appeal unless the court decides to review the issue for plain
    15
    Case: 11-12888     Date Filed: 05/07/2013   Page: 16 of 25
    error. See, e.g., Santiago v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 
    138 F.3d 1
    , 4 & n.4 (1st Cir. 1998)
    (noting that “a party’s failure to assert a specific objection to a report and
    recommendation irretrievably waives any right to review by the . . . court of
    appeals” but concluding that it did not find plain error in any event); Park Motor
    Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 
    616 F.2d 603
    , 605 (1st Cir. 1980) (“We conclude
    that a party ‘may’ file objections within ten days or he may not, as he chooses, but
    he ‘shall’ do so if he wishes further consideration.”). The First Circuit’s rule only
    applies when the magistrate judge gives “clear notice to litigants not only of the
    requirements that objections must be specific and be filed within ten days . . . , but
    that failure to file within the time allowed waives the right to appeal the district
    court’s order.” United States v. Valencia-Copete, 
    792 F.2d 4
    , 6 (1st Cir. 1986).
    Likewise, in the Second Circuit, “[w]hen a party fails to object timely to a
    magistrate’s recommended decision, it waives any right to further judicial review
    of that decision.”   McCarthy v. Manson, 
    714 F.2d 234
    , 237 (2d Cir. 1983).
    However, the Second Circuit will review an unobjected-to issue if it finds that the
    “interests of justice” require review. Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 
    838 F.2d 55
    , 59
    (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit also refuses to apply its failure-to-object rule if
    the magistrate judge does not warn pro se litigants of the consequences of failing to
    16
    Case: 11-12888       Date Filed: 05/07/2013   Page: 17 of 25
    object to a report and recommendation. Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
    
    892 F.2d 15
    , 16 (2d Cir. 1989).
    The Fourth Circuit attaches serious consequences to a party’s failure to
    object. If a party fails to object, that “party waives the right to appellate review of
    a magistrate’s decision.” United States v. George, 
    971 F.2d 1113
    , 1118 n.7 (4th
    Cir. 1992); see also Page v. Lee, 
    337 F.3d 411
    , 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003) (“As we
    have long held, the failure to raise objections to a magistrate judge’s
    recommendations waives the right to appellate review.”). Pro se litigants must
    “receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate’s
    report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right of appeal.”
    Wright v. Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 846 (4th Cir. 1985).
    Similarly, in the Sixth Circuit, “a party shall file objections with the district
    court or else waive right to appeal.” United States v. Walters, 
    638 F.2d 947
    , 950
    (6th Cir. 1981). But a party that fails to object will not waive the right to appellate
    review unless the “party was properly informed of the consequences of failing to
    object.” Miller v. Currie, 
    50 F.3d 373
    , 380 (6th Cir. 1995). And because “[t]he
    requirement for specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report is not
    jurisdictional[,] a failure to comply may be excused in the interest of justice.”
    Kelly v. Withrow, 
    25 F.3d 363
    , 366 (6th Cir. 1994).
    17
    Case: 11-12888    Date Filed: 05/07/2013    Page: 18 of 25
    The Seventh Circuit follows suit. A party’s “[f]ailure to file objections with
    the district court to a magistrate’s report and recommendation waives the right to
    appeal all issues addressed in the recommendation, both factual and legal.”
    Lorentzen v. Anderson Pest Control, 
    64 F.3d 327
    , 330 (7th Cir. 1995). The
    Seventh Circuit will excuse a party’s failure to comply with its rule when applying
    the rule would “defeat the ends of justice.” Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd.,
    
    797 F.2d 538
    , 540 (7th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    The Tenth Circuit holds that it is “without power to review [the district
    court’s] order on appeal” when a party fails to object. Niehaus v. Kan. Bar Ass’n,
    
    793 F.2d 1159
    , 1165 (10th Cir. 1986), superseded by statute on other grounds,
    Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-259, 
    102 Stat. 28
    . A party’s
    failure to object “waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.”
    Duffield v. Jackson, 
    545 F.3d 1234
    , 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
    marks omitted). The Tenth Circuit will not apply its rule to a pro se litigant unless
    the magistrate judge informs the litigant of the consequences of failing to object.
    Moore v. United States, 
    950 F.2d 656
    , 659 (10th Cir. 1991). Nor will it apply its
    rule if “the interests of justice require review.”      Duffield, 
    545 F.3d at 1237
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    18
    Case: 11-12888      Date Filed: 05/07/2013   Page: 19 of 25
    The Supreme Court, in reviewing a Sixth Circuit case, approved the Sixth
    Circuit’s rule—the failure to object to a factual finding or legal conclusion in the
    magistrate judge’s report and recommendation bars appellate review of that factual
    finding or legal conclusion. Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
    , 155, 
    106 S. Ct. 466
    , 475
    (1985).
    In Thomas, Kathy Thomas filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
    Id. at 143
    , 106 S. Ct. at 469. The district court referred the petition to the magistrate
    judge, and the magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed and
    warned Thomas that the “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time
    waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” Id. at 144, 106 S. Ct. at 469.
    Thomas did not file any objections, and the district court dismissed her petition.
    Id. at 144, 106 S. Ct. at 469. She appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which held that she
    had waived the right to appeal when she failed to file objections to the magistrate
    judge’s report and recommendation. Id. Thomas petitioned for a writ of certiorari,
    and the Court granted the petition to consider “whether a court of appeals may
    exercise its supervisory powers to establish a rule that the failure to file objections
    to the magistrate’s report waives the right to appeal the district court’s judgment.”
    Id. at 142, 106 S. Ct. at 468.
    19
    Case: 11-12888      Date Filed: 05/07/2013   Page: 20 of 25
    The Court held that the courts of appeals may adopt such a rule, saying that
    “[s]uch a rule, at least when it incorporates clear notice to the litigants and an
    opportunity to seek an extension of time for filing objections, is a valid exercise of
    the supervisory power.” Id. at 155, 106 S. Ct. at 475. And the Court noted that “it
    seems clear” that Congress, in enacting the Federal Magistrates Act, 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 631
    –639, “would not have wanted district judges to devote time to reviewing
    magistrate’s reports except to the extent that such review is requested by the
    parties.” 
    Id. at 153
    , 106 S. Ct. at 474.
    The Court also observed that such a rule “is supported by sound
    considerations of judicial economy.” Id. at 147, 106 S. Ct. at 471. Specifically,
    the Court said:
    The Sixth Circuit’s rule, by precluding appellate review of any issue
    not contained in objections, prevents a litigant from “sandbagging”
    the district judge by failing to object and then appealing. Absent such
    a rule, any issue before the magistrate would be a proper subject for
    appellate review. This would either force the court of appeals to
    consider claims that were never reviewed by the district court, or force
    the district court to review every issue in every case, no matter how
    thorough the magistrate’s analysis and even if both parties were
    satisfied with the magistrate’s report. Either result would be an
    inefficient use of judicial resources. In short, “[t]he same rationale
    that prevents a party from raising an issue before a circuit court of
    appeals that was not raised before the district court applies here.”
    20
    Case: 11-12888      Date Filed: 05/07/2013       Page: 21 of 25
    Id. at 147–48, 106 S. Ct. at 471 (quoting United States v. Schronce, 
    727 F.2d 91
    ,
    94 (4th Cir. 1984)). 3
    C. Proposal
    Unlike the rule approved in Thomas, our current rule is not “supported by
    sound considerations of judicial economy” and does not comport with the purposes
    of the Federal Magistrates Act.
    First, our current rule does nothing to prevent a litigant from “sandbagging”
    a district court. Under the rule established in Nettles, litigants have little incentive
    to make objections to the magistrate judge’s legal conclusions.                   With legal
    conclusions, litigants can choose not to object, allow the district court to adopt the
    report and recommendation, and then raise the issue on appeal and receive de novo
    review without having given the district court the opportunity to review the issue in
    the first instance.
    Second, our rule is inconsistent with the purposes of the Federal Magistrates
    Act. The Act permits district courts to appoint magistrate judges to hear and
    provide recommendations on certain matters. 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 631
    , 636. Magistrate
    judges exist to improve access to the federal courts and help the district courts
    3
    The Supreme Court did not construe the Sixth Circuit’s rule as depriving the appellate
    court of jurisdiction. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155, 106 S. Ct. at 475.
    21
    Case: 11-12888        Date Filed: 05/07/2013       Page: 22 of 25
    manage their massive dockets. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 145, 106 S. Ct. at 470 (noting
    that the fundamental purpose of the Act is to “improve access to the federal courts
    and aid the efficient administration of justice” (internal quotation marks omitted));
    Niehaus, 
    793 F.2d at 1165
     (observing that the policy behind the Act is to “relieve
    courts of unnecessary work and to improve access to the courts”). Requiring
    parties to file objections or waive the right to de novo review on appeal if they do
    not object comports with the Act’s purposes. When district courts have specific
    objections before them, they can focus on the issues of contention. Not having to
    review every undisputed issue frees the district courts to work on other matters.
    Our rule, on the other hand, does little to help the district courts manage their
    dockets. Instead, it forces them to spend significant amounts of time and resources
    reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not. This is “an inefficient use of
    judicial resources.” See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 148, 106 S. Ct. at 471.
    For these reasons, we urge the court to overrule Nettles and adopt a rule for
    civil cases that attaches consequences to the failure to object to either factual
    findings or legal conclusions in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 4
    4
    The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure already attach consequences to a party’s
    failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Rule 59 provides that the
    “[f]ailure to object in accordance with this rule waives a party’s right to review.” Fed. R. Crim.
    P. 59(a) & (b)(2). And the advisory committee notes accompanying Rule 59 say that the “waiver
    provision” in (a) and (b)(2) “is intended to establish the requirements for objecting in a district
    22
    Case: 11-12888       Date Filed: 05/07/2013      Page: 23 of 25
    We propose adopting a rule that permits plain error review of unobjected-to
    factual findings or legal conclusions if the “interests of justice” require such
    review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155, 106 S. Ct. at 475 (“[B]ecause the rule is a
    nonjurisdictional waiver provision, the Court of Appeals may excuse the default in
    the interests of justice.”). Permitting, but not requiring, plain error review in the
    interests of justice is consistent with the rules of many of our sister circuits. See,
    e.g., Alspaugh v. McConnell, 
    643 F.3d 162
    , 166 (6th Cir. 2011) (excusing failure to
    object “in the interest of justice” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Snyder v.
    Nolen, 
    380 F.3d 279
    , 284 (7th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that the court’s firm waiver
    rule should not be employed if it would “defeat the ends of justice” (internal
    quotation marks omitted)); Wirsching v. Colorado, 
    360 F.3d 1191
    , 1198 (10th Cir.
    2004) (declining to apply waiver rule in the “interests of justice”); Frank v.
    Johnson, 
    968 F.2d 298
    , 300 (2d Cir. 1992) (noting that the court will excuse the
    failure to object in the “interests of justice” (internal quotation marks omitted));
    Martinez v. Ylst, 
    951 F.2d 1153
    , 1157 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that waiver may be
    court in order to preserve appellate review of magistrate judges’ decisions.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59
    advisory committee’s note.
    Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases
    (Habeas Rules) attach consequences to a party’s failure to object. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Habeas
    Rule 8.
    23
    Case: 11-12888        Date Filed: 05/07/2013         Page: 24 of 25
    appropriate “unless there are circumstances suggesting that it will work a
    substantial inequity”). Such a rule should apply only if the parties are given notice
    of the consequences of the failure to object. Most of our sister circuits require such
    notice. See, e.g., Douglass, 
    79 F.3d at
    1428–29; Miller, 
    50 F.3d at 380
    ; Moore,
    
    950 F.2d at 659
    ; Small, 
    892 F.2d at 16
    ; Valencia-Copete, 
    792 F.2d at 6
    ; Nash, 
    781 F.2d at 667
    ; Wright, 
    766 F.2d at 846
    . And such a rule should be given only
    prospective effect because rules of procedure should “promote the ends of justice,
    not defeat them.” Hormel v. Helvering, 
    312 U.S. 552
    , 557, 
    61 S. Ct. 719
    , 721
    (1941).5
    In Thomas, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals may, in the
    exercise of their supervisory powers, establish a rule that attaches consequences to
    the failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 474 U.S.
    at 155, 106 S. Ct. at 475.            We understand this to mean that a rule may be
    established either by judicial decision or by administrative rule-making. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2071
    (a) permits the courts of appeals to “prescribe rules for the conduct of their
    business.” And Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 47(a)(1) says that “[e]ach
    court of appeals acting by a majority of its judges in regular service may, after
    giving appropriate public notice and opportunity for comment, make and amend
    5
    The proposed rule will, of course, not affect this case.
    24
    Case: 11-12888       Date Filed: 05/07/2013       Page: 25 of 25
    rules governing its practice.” Fed. R. App. P. 47(a)(1). Should this court decide to
    adopt such a rule, it is within its discretion to adopt the rule either under its
    administrative rule-making power or through a judicial decision en banc. 6
    V. CONCLUSION
    The judgment in this case is vacated and remanded.
    VACATED AND REMANDED.
    6
    Former Fifth Circuit cases are binding unless overruled or modified by this court sitting
    en banc. United States v. Gollwitzer, 
    697 F.2d 1357
    , 1360 n.2 (11th Cir. 1983).
    25
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-12888

Judges: Wilson, Cox, Bowen

Filed Date: 5/7/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (50)

Hubert Vernon Hardin v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, ... ( 1982 )

barbara-c-miller-v-richard-s-currie-doris-currie-todd-hamilton-noll-brad ( 1995 )

Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. And Joseph Sclafani ( 1986 )

bryant-r-britt-v-simi-valley-unified-school-district-john-w-duncan ( 1983 )

United States v. McClendon ( 1999 )

Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company ( 1980 )

Garcia Jay Wright v. George Collins, Warden, Maryland ... ( 1985 )

Daniel Loconte v. Richard Dugger, Robert A. Butterworth ( 1988 )

Farley v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. ( 1999 )

Robert J. McCarthy v. John Manson, Commissioner of ... ( 1983 )

Shirley Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 1989 )

Floyd Frank v. Sally B. Johnson ( 1992 )

Santiago, etc. v. Canon, U.S.A., Inc. ( 1998 )

United States v. Cyrus Jonathan George ( 1992 )

Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of ... ( 1982 )

James R. Snyder v. Jack T. Nolen ( 2004 )

Jane Niehaus and Joyce Neumann v. Kansas Bar Association, ... ( 1986 )

Daniel Clark Medberry v. James Crosby ( 2003 )

United States v. Emiliano Valencia-Copete ( 1986 )

Smith v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections ( 2009 )

View All Authorities »