Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Robert & Nina Puryear v. Ede's Ltd., Etc., Charles Eilert and Edith Eilert, Individually

Robert & Nina Puryear v. Ede's Ltd., Etc., Charles Eilert & Edith Eilert, Individually, 731 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1984)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1984-04-30
Topic: bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

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”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Robert & Nina Puryear v. Ede's Ltd., Etc., Charles Eilert and Edith Eilert, Individually. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 56 opinions

PURYEAR v. EDE'S LTD.,731 F.2d 1153(5th Cir. 1984)

ROBERT NINA PURYEAR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. EDE'S LTD., ETC., ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS, CHARLES EILERT AND EDITH EILERT, INDIVIDUALLY,

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

No. 83-4312.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 1984.

Page 1154

Clyde Hurlbert, Biloxi, Miss., for defendants-appellants.

Acevedo Tisdale, Robert M. Acevedo, Biloxi, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before TATE, GARWOOD and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

[1] 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 onPacemaker DiagnosticClinic 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.

[2]Pacemaker,however, was vacateden 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).

[3] 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.

[4] AFFIRMED.