Robert & Nina Puryear v. Ede's Ltd., Etc., Charles Eilert and Edith Eilert, Individually
Robert & Nina PURYEAR, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EDE’S LTD., Etc., Et Al., Defendants, Charles Eilert and Edith Eilert, Individually, Defendants-Appellants
Opinion
PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:
After consent by all parties, this diversity case was referred to a magistrate for trial and the entry of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). Appellants, relying on Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, 712 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir.1983), claim that magistrates in trying such cases exercise powers reserved under the Constitution to Article III judges.
Pacemaker, however, was vacated en banc, 725 F.2d 537 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc). That court found § 636(c) of the Magistrates Act saved from any constitutional infirmity by its requirement that all parties consent to such transfer and by the power of the district court to vacate the reference to the magistrate on its own motion. § 636(c)(1), (6). Each circuit facing this question has reached a similar conclusion.
Goldstein v. Kelleher, 728 F.2d 32 (1st Cir.1984);
Collins v. Foreman, 729 F.2d 108 (2d Cir.1984);
Wharton-Thomas v. United States, 721 F.2d 922 (3d Cir.1983).
For essentially the reasons stated by our sister circuits, we find that § 636(c) of the Magistrates Act does not suffer the asserted constitutional infirmity. We publish only part II of this opinion because this breach of contract case otherwise presents no issues of precedential value.
AFFIRMED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that referrals of civil matters to magistrates pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) are constitutional “[f]or essentially the reasons stated by our sister circuits”)
Cited by 43 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals29
- Federal District Courts8
- Bankruptcy Courts3
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Technical Automation Services Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Insurance
- United States v. Edward John Johnston, Iii, Also Known as Easy, Also Known as Ez, Also Known as Charles Edward Johnson, III
- BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C.
- I F G Port Hold v. Lake Charles Harbor
- Paul Edward Archie, Paul Edward Archie v. David A. Christian
- United States v. Lois E. Hilton Ford
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.