Barger v. Astrue

Filing 920100914


Download PDF
U n i t e d States Court of Appeals T e n t h Circuit FILED S e p t e m b e r 14, 2010 U N I T E D STATES COURT OF APPEALSl i s a b e t h A. Shumaker E F O R THE TENTH CIRCUIT C l e r k of Court K I M BARGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M I C H A E L J. ASTRUE, Commissioner o f Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee. N o . 09-3313 ( D . C . No. 6:08-CV-01333-MLB) ( D . Kan.) O R D E R AND JUDGMENT * B e f o r e TACHA, HOLLOWAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. P l a i n t i f f Kim Barger appeals from a district court order affirming the C o mmi s s i o n e r ' s decision to deny disability benefits. In so ruling, the district c o u r t adopted the thorough recommendation of the magistrate judge, to which M s . Barger, then represented by counsel, had filed no objections. Applying the f i r m waiver rule that governs such circumstances in this circuit, we affirm. A f t e r examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined u n a n i mo u s l y that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of t h i s appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is t h e r e f o r e ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is n o t binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, a n d collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value c o n s i s t e n t with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. * " T h i s court has adopted a firm waiver rule under which a party who fails to ma k e a timely objection to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations w a i v e s appellate review of both factual and legal questions." Morales-Fernandez v . INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005). The rule may be suspended in both p r o se and counseled cases where the interests of justice favor review, id., but this e x c e p t i o n is especially narrow "in counseled, civil, nonhabeas cases," such as the o n e before us. Key Energy Res., Inc. v. Merrill (In re Key Energy Res., Inc.), 2 3 0 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2000). Here, "the merits of the underlying case s h o u l d not be considered in determining whether the interests of justice exception h a s been met;" instead, our focus is limited to "the facts [if any] that purport to e x c u s e the lack or untimeliness of the filing of objections" by counsel. 1 Id. This court provided Ms. Barger an opportunity to address the applicability o f the firm waiver rule to her appeal. In her response, she did not offer any facts e x c u s i n g counsel's failure to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. R a t h e r , the thrust of her response was that she should not bear the consequences o f her counsel's unexcused omission. I n contrast, the importance of the issues raised is a relevant consideration i n assessing the interests of justice exception in pro se cases, Morales-Fernandez, 4 1 8 F.3d at 1120, and the waiver rule will be suspended if the pro se litigant can d e mo n s t r a t e plain error in the magistrate judge's unobjected-to recommendation, i d . at 1122; see, e.g., Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1238 (10th Cir. 2008) ( f o l l o w i n g Morales-Fernandez and applying plain-error review in pro se case); W a r d e l l v. Duncan, 470 F.3d 954, 958 (10th Cir. 2006) (same). -2- 1 T h a t argument is singularly unavailing. Counseled litigants are generally b o u n d by the actions of their legal representatives. Gripe v. City of Enid, 3 1 2 F.3d 1184, 1189 (10th Cir. 2002). 2 And to deviate from that general principle s p e c i f i c a l l y in connection with our firm waiver rule, allowing litigants to pursue o b j e c t i o n s previously forfeited without excuse by their counsel, would effectively n u l l i f y the operation of the waiver rule in counseled cases­precisely where it is me a n t to have its most rigorous application. Our case law does not support such a r e s u l t . Indeed, this court has consistently refused to suspend operation of the rule w h e r e the failure to object was the result of counsel's omission, neglect, or i g n o r a n c e of the law. See, e.g., Montoya v. Garcia (In re Garcia), 347 F. App'x 3 8 1 , 382-83 (10th Cir. 2009); Smith v. SDI Indus., Inc., 260 F. App'x 93, 94-95 ( 1 0 t h Cir. 2008); Neely v. Ortiz, 241 F. App'x 474, 477 & n.1 (10th Cir. 2007). W e elaborated on this point in Gripe with the following quotation from the S u p r e me Court's decision in Link v. Wabash R. R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962): " T h e r e is certainly no merit to the contention that dismissal of p e t i t i o n e r ' s claim because of his counsel's unexcused conduct i mp o s e s an unjust penalty on the client. Petitioner voluntarily chose t h i s attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now a v o i d the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely s e l e c t e d agent. Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with o u r system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed b o u n d by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have n o t i c e of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney." G r i p e , 312 F.3d at 1189 (quoting Link, 370 U.S. at 633-34). -3- 2 I n light of the procedural rights at stake, counsel need to be vigilant in p r e s e r v i n g grounds for appeal when cases proceed initially before a magistrate j u d g e . If, for whatever reason, counsel do not intend to file objections to an e n s u i n g recommendation, they should inform their clients of that decision and its p r o c e d u r a l consequences before those consequences take effect. Counsel who do n o t fulfill this basic responsibility leave their clients in the worst possible p o s i t i o n : at least if the client were proceeding pro se, the waiver rule would be c o n s i d e r a b l y more lenient. Here, it appears Ms. Barger's attorney did nothing u n t i l the district court adopted the unobjected-to recommendation, and then just s e n t a letter informing her of the court's adverse decision and his unwillingness to t a k e an appeal on her behalf because he "d[id] not think an appeal would be s u c c e s s f u l . " R. vol. 1 at 410. Ironically, regardless of whether there was any me r i t to Ms. Barger's case, that assessment of success on appeal is undeniably c o r r e c t due to counsel's own inaction. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant's motion for l e a v e to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. Entered for the Court D e a n e l l Reece Tacha C i r c u i t Judge -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?