Medrano et al v. Elmer's Painting and Remodeling, Inc. et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 13 Plaintiffs' MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendants filed by Griselda Medrano, Oscar Ivan Ravelo Ramirez. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Connelly on 8/2/2017. Objections due 8/16/17. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter, # 2 Errata FRCP 72)(nk, Chambers)(copy mailed to pro se Defendants Elmer Melgar & Elmer's Painting and Remodeling, Inc.)
signed, without the parties' consent, to hear a pretrial matter
dispositive of' a claim or defense or a prisoner petition
challenging the conditions of confinement. A record must be
made of all evidentiary proceedings and may, at the magistrate judge's discretion, be made of any other proceedings.
The magistrate judge must enter a recommended disposition,
including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact. The clerk
must promptly mail a copy to each party.
(2) Objections. Within 14 days after being served with a
copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and
file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. A party may respond to another party's
objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.
Unless the district judge orders otherwise, the objecting
party must promptly arrange for transcribing the record, or
whatever portions of it the parties agree to or the magistrate
judge considers sufficient.
(3) Resolving Objections. The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition
that has been properly objected to. The district judge may
accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
should be a lawyer and all members should have some background
qualifying them to weigh proof of value in the real estate field and,
when possible, in the particular real estate market embracing the land
The amended Rule should give litigants greater confidence in the
commission procedure by affording them certain rights to participate in
the appointment of commission members that are roughly comparable
to the practice with regard to jury selection. This is accomplished by
giving the court permission to allow the parties to examine prospective
commissioners and by recognizing the right of each party to object to
the appointment of any person for cause.
The amendments are technical.
No substantive change is intended.
The amendment is technical., No substantive change is intended.
The references to the subdivisions of Rule 4 are deleted in light of
the revision of that rule.
The references to specific subdivisions of Rule 53 are deleted or
revised to reflect amendments of Rule 53.
(Former Rule 72 abrogated December 4, 1967, effective July 1, 1968;
new Rule 72 adopted April 28, 1983, effective August 1, 1983; amended
April 30, 1991, effective December 1, 1991; April 22, 1993, effective
December 1, 1993; April 30, 2007, effective December 1, 2007; March
26, 2009, effective December 1, 2009.)
The language of Rule 71A has been amended 'as part of the general
restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and
to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These
changes are intended to be stylistic only.
Former Rule 71A has been redesignated as Rule 71.1 to conform to
the designations used for all other rules added with the original
Rule 71.1(e) allows a defendant to appear without answering. Former
form 28 (now form 60) includes information about this right in the Rule
71.1(d)(2) notice. It is useful to confirm this practice in the rule.
The information that identifies the attorney is changed to include
telephone number and electronic-mail address, in line with similar
amendments to Rules l1(a) and 26(g)(1).
Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
(a) Nondispositive Matters.
When a pretrial matter not
dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a
magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must
promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may
serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being
served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect
in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the
case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside
any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to
(b) Dispositive Motions and Prisoner Petitions.
(1) Findings and Recommendations. A magistr'ate judge
must promptly conduct the required proceedings when asFor Complete
The times set in the former rule at 20 days have been revised to 21
days. See the Note to Rule 6.
Subdivision (a). This subdivision addresses court-ordered referrals
of nondispositive matters under 28 U.S.C. ~ 636(b)(1)(A). The rule
calls for a written order of the magistrate's disposition to preserve the
record and facilitate review. An oral order read into the record by the
magistrate will satisfy this requirement.
No specific procedures or timetables for raising objections to the
magistrate's rulings on nondispositive matters are set forth in the
Magistrates Act. The rule fixes alO-day period in order to avoid
uncertainty and provide uniformity that will eliminate the confusion
that. might arise if different periods were prescribed by local rule in
different districts. It also is contemplated that a party who is successful before the magistrate will be afforded an opportunity to respond to
objections raised to the magistrate's ruling.
The last sentence of subdivision (a) specifies that reconsideration of a
magistrate's order, as provided for in the Magistrates Act, shall be by
the district judge to whom the case is assigned. This rule does not
restrict experimentation by the district courts under 28 U.S.C.'
~ 636(b)(3) involving references of matters other than pretrial matters,
such as appointment of counsel, taking of default judgments, and
acceptance of jury verdicts when the judge is unavailable.
Subdivision (b). This subdivision governs court-ordered referrals of
dispositive pretrial matters and prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement, pursuant to statutory authorization in 28 U.S.C.
~ 636(b)(1)(B). This rule does not extend to habeas corpus petitions,
which are covered by the specific rules relating to proceedings under
Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28.
This rule implements the statutory procedures for making objections
to the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.
1Q-day period, as specified in the statute, is subject to Rule 6(e) which
provides for an additional 3-day period when service is made by mail.
Although no specific provision appears in the Magistrates Act, the rule
Materials, see United States Code Annotated
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?