Scott-Benson v. KBR
Filing
124
ORDER AND REASONS that the plaintiffs Objection to Summary Judgment in Favor ofKBR 120 is DISMISSED without prejudice to her right to appeal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 12/5/2019. (caa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANGIE SCOTT-BENSON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 18-0056
KBR, INC.
CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KAREN WELLS ROBY
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s “Objection to Summary Judgment in Favor of KBR”
(Rec. Doc. No. 120). In the motion, the plaintiff moves a United States District Judge under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b) to consider certain her objections to alleged errors in the undersigned Chief United
States Magistrate Judge’s reasons supporting the final Judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 119) entered
November 13, 2019. By that Judgment and the supporting Order and Reasons (Rec. Doc. No.
118), the Court granted the defendant, KRB, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. No.
53) and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
Beginning June 11, 2018, this case has been before the undersigned Chief Magistrate Judge
for all proceedings pursuant to the valid, written consent of all parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Rec. Doc. No. 15. Pursuant to § 636(c), the undersigned is the presiding judge in this case while
in the district court. Any appeal of an order or judgment entered in this case must be taken directly
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the same manner as an appeal from
any other appealable order or judgment of the district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(c)(1), (c)(3).
The provisions of § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 no longer apply in this case. See Johnson v.
Collins, No. 94-41056, 1995 WL 71155, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 25, 1995) (“When a magistrate judge
proceeds to adjudicate the claims under subsection (c), the notice and opportunity to respond under
subsection (b) are inapplicable.”). The Fifth Circuit has further explained the effects of the parties
consent:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), litigants may object to a report and recommendations
within fourteen days after service of same. If, however, the parties consent to
proceed before the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge may, with the district
court’s approval, “conduct any or all proceedings . . . and order the entry of
judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). When the magistrate judge enters judgment,
an aggrieved party appeals directly to the court of appeals “in the same manner as
an appeal from any other judgment of a district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).
Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 762 n.4 (5th Cir. 2014); accord Booker v. Collins, No. 9941021, 2001 WL 422883, at *7 (5th Cir. Apr. 5, 2001) (Section 636(c) “allows the magistrate
judge to enter final judgment in the case and permits an aggrieved party to appeal directly from
the magistrate judge’s judgment to the court of appeals…”).
In this case, by consenting to proceed before the undersigned Chief Magistrate Judge, the
plaintiff also consented to the entry of final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). Id. The
plaintiff has no procedural grounds to file objections to the final Judgment entered by this Court
on November 13, 2019. Any relief from the Judgment may be addressed through a properly filed
notice of appeal to the United States Fifth Circuit. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Objection to Summary Judgment in Favor of
KBR (Rec. Doc. No. 120) is DISMISSED without prejudice to her right to appeal.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of December, 2019.
____________________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
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?