Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2d 5
The major issue in this appeal brought by a prisoner in a civil rights action
against a warden is whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1), the district
court should have engaged in a de novo review of the magistrate's report by
reading a transcript or listening to a tape recording of the entire hearing before
the magistrate. Section 636(b)(1) requires that a plaintiff must file both timely
and specific objections to the report to trigger de novo review. The appellant
argues that his objections were timely and that because they involved the whole
report, a review of a transcript or tape recording was mandated. Because this
issue implicates the interpretation and application of legal precepts, our review
is plenary. Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C.A. Hughes & Co., 669 F.2d 98, 102-03
(3d Cir.1981).
We conclude that in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, the district
court did not err by adopting the magistrate's recommendation and report
without reviewing a transcript or tape recording of the hearing before the
magistrate.
Plaintiff-appellant Alvin Goney, a prisoner in the Fayette County Jail, filed this
Sec. 1983 action against the Fayette County, Pennsylvania, warden, James
Clark, alleging that the warden had unlawfully transferred him to solitary
confinement without a hearing. The case was tried to a magistrate pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate submitted her report and
recommendation to the district court, and recommended ruling against plaintiff.
Goney subsequently filed a pro se "Motion for Notification of Appeal," which
the district court treated as objections to the magistrate's report. In its review of
that report, the district court relied only on the pleadings, documents, and a
summary of the testimony, and did not review either a transcript or a
taperecording of the hearing. Appellant argues on appeal that the district court
should have engaged in a word-for-word review of the entire proceeding before
the magistrate. We disagree.