Powers of Magistrate Judges

PRE-2024 COMMITTEE NOTE Local Civil Rule 72.1 confirms and continues the Courts’ intent to give their Magistrate Judges the maximum powers authorized by law. Local Civil Rule 72.1(a) is necessary in order to authorize full-time Magistrate Judges to exercise the consent jurisdiction Joint Local Rules, S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y. Effective January 2, 2026 conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Local Civil Rule 72.1(b) and (c) confer useful administrative powers upon Magistrate Judges. Although Local Civil Rule 72.1(d) may be unnecessary in light of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Committee decided that it would be prudent to retain it in order to avoid any possible question on this point. The final sentence of Local Civil Rule 72.1(d) seems unnecessary in light of the sentence preceding it. 2024 COMMITTEE NOTE The amendments are intended to reflect more clearly the intent of the current local civil rule, which is to grant magistrate judges the full powers available under federal law.

Although the amendments remove former subsections (b), (c), and (d), the Committee does not suggest that magistrate judges may not perform those duties or that district judges may not refer such duties to them; rather, the Committee concludes that specific enumeration is unnecessary in light of the general grant of authority set forth in the rule. References to “full-time” magistrate judges have been deleted as the Committee sees no reason not to extend these powers to any part-time magistrate judges who may be serving in one or both districts. The amendments also explicitly provide for submission of a response to an objection to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order and a time limit for doing so. Although neither Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 nor 28 U.S.C. § 636 expressly authorize filing responses to objections, it is common practice to do so, and the Committee believes it is proper and useful to provide an opportunity to file responses to objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) provides that a district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 2026 COMMITTEE NOTE Local Civil Rule 72.1 was amended to impose length limitations and formatting requirements on briefs submitted in connection with objections to decisions of magistrate judges, which previously had, unlike other briefing, no default limits.

Because the issues will usually have been addressed in prior briefing or argument, the shorter word counts applicable to motions for reconsideration, set forth in Local Rule Joint Local Rules, S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y. Effective January 2, 2026 6.3, are set as the default limits. The rule was restructured and retitled to account for this new provision and more accurately reflect its scope.