Trufant v. Autocon, Inc.
5th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Morgan v. Chapman 5th Cir.
- 2024Mason v. City of Waco 5th Cir.
- 2022Cruz v. Lumpkin 5th Cir.
- 2018Deutsch v. Annis Enters., Inc. 5th Cir.
- 2018Felix Price v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden 5th Cir.
- 2018Jon Deutsch v. Annis Enterprises, Inc. 5th Cir.
- 2018Jon Deutsch v. Travis County Shoe Hospital 5th Cir.
- 2012Wilhelm v. Rotman 9th Cir.
- 2010Pechon v. Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals 5th Cir.
- 2010Patel v. Baluyot 5th Cir.
Cites 2 statutes
- Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
- Final decisions of district courts
Cites 4 cases
- United States v. Cline
- Kendall v. Davis
- United States v. Renfro
- Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Leroy L. TRUFANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUTOCON, INC., a subsidiary of Camco, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Attorneys
- Leroy L. Trufant, pro se.
- Jones, Walker, Waecheter, Poitevent, Carriere & Denegre, David Israel, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal is granted on the ground that there is no final appealable order before the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
This Title VII discrimination action was referred by the district court to a U.S. magistrate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 53. The magistrate made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended that plaintiff’s suit be dismissed. As of the date that this appeal was filed in this court, the district court had not acted on the findings and recommendation of the magistrate.
It is well established that the findings of a magistrate may not ordinarily be appealed directly to the Court of Appeals. United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 921, 101 S.Ct. 321, 66 L.Ed.2d 149 (1980); Kendall v. Davis, 569 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Cline, 566 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir.1978). This general rule is overcome only when the magistrate acts under a specific statutory provision authorizing direct appeal to the circuit court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), a district court, with the voluntary consent of the parties, may authorize a magistrate to conduct proceedings and enter final judgment in a case; such judgment is then appealable to the circuit court directly, id. § 636(c)(3).
We conclude that the reference to the magistrate made by the district court was not made under § 636(c)(1), and hence is not covered by § 636(c)(3). The district judge stated that the reference was being made under Title VII’s magistrate provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5), and Rule 53. Neither of these sections provides for a final judgment to be entered by the magistrate, and Rule 53 explicitly provides for review of the magistrate’s findings and recommendations by the district court.
Further, we find no evidence that the parties consented to have the magistrate enter a final judgment. We have held before that such consent must be explicit, and will not be casually inferred from the conduct of the parties. Glover v. Alabama Bd. of Corrections, 660 F.2d 120 (5th Cir.1981); accord, Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 690 F.2d 717 (9th Cir.1982).
In sum, the magistrate’s findings are not a final appealable order, and the district court, too, has yet to enter a final judgment in this case. It follows that plaintiff’s appeal must be dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.