324 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2003), 02-3642, U.S. v. Lothridge

Docket Nº02-3642
Citation324 F.3d 599
Party NameUnited States of America, Appellee, v. Felipe Lothridge, Appellant.
Case DateApril 04, 2003
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 599

324 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2003)

United States of America, Appellee,

v.

Felipe Lothridge, Appellant.

No. 02-3642

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

April 4, 2003

Submitted: March 13, 2003

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Kenneth R. Schwartz, Clayton, MO, for appellant.

Jennifer J. Roy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, St. Louis, MO (Raymond W. Gruender, on the brief), for appellee.

Page 600

Before BOWMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Felipe Lothridge was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). On appeal, he raises three issues, urging that the District Court erred when it denied his motion to suppress, when it admitted evidence of his prior bad acts, and when it admitted the drugs into evidence despite Lothridge's proffered evidence of tampering. We have no occasion to reach the merits of Lothridge's claims because the District Court erred when it failed to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge's proposed findings regarding Lothridge's motion to suppress, insofar as Lothridge objected to those findings. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the District Court for the required de novo review.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2000), district courts may designate magistrate judges to conduct, inter alia, evidentiary hearings on suppression motions and to submit to a district judge proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of the matter. Section 636(b)(1) also requires that when a party objects to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge concerning a dispositive matter, "[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). We have repeatedly observed that failure to engage in the required de novo review is reversible error. See e.g., Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995). This is so because unless the ultimate decision is made by a district judge, Article III power has effectively been exercised by a magistrate judge, see United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 677-78 (1980), and magistrate judges, who are appointed by district courts, for limited terms of office, are not Article III judges. The exercise of ultimate judicial authority by other than Article III officers affects both individual and structural constitutional protections. In terms of individual protections, the defendant's right to be tried by an Article III judge is implicated. Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 936-37 (1991). From an institutional standpoint, allowing a magistrate judge to exercise Article III power may impugn the structural protections inherent in our tripartite system of government. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 850 (1986). Although Lothridge does not raise the issue on appeal, because of our institutional concerns, his waiver, whether inadvertent or intentional, does not affect our ability to notice the District Court's failure to conduct a de novo review.

In general, we presume that a district judge has in fact undertaken a de novo review of the disputed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
435 practice notes
  • 276 F.Supp.2d 999 (D.N.D. 2003), A3-99-26, AgGrow Oils, L.L.C. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of North Dakota
    • July 14, 2003
    ...Accordingly, the Court's review is only of the Masters' conclusions of law, and this review is de novo. United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir. The Court has already observed in an earlier order in this case that there is no question that the plant failed to meet its expecta......
  • 730 F.Supp.2d 969 (D.Neb. 2010), 8:10CR107, United States v. Magallanes
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of Nebraska
    • August 3, 2010
    ...the court makes a de novo determination of those portions of the F & R to which the parties object. United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600-01 (8th Cir.2003). The court has conducted a de novo review of the record and exhibits, including the transcript of the suppression hearing. ......
  • Daugherty v. Dormire, 051809 MOEDC, 4:07CV1530 HEA
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Eastern District of Missouri
    • May 18, 2009
    ...a de novo review of the portions of the report, findings, or recommendations to which the party objected. See United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir.2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). This includes a de novo review of the magistrate's findings of fact, including any credi......
  • Dean v. Astrue, 090911 MOEDC, 1:10CV00086 ERW
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 9, 2011
    ...portions of the report, or specified proposed findings, or recommendations to which objection is made.'" United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). The Court will therefore conduct a de novo review of those portions of the Report and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
433 cases
  • 276 F.Supp.2d 999 (D.N.D. 2003), A3-99-26, AgGrow Oils, L.L.C. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of North Dakota
    • July 14, 2003
    ...Accordingly, the Court's review is only of the Masters' conclusions of law, and this review is de novo. United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir. The Court has already observed in an earlier order in this case that there is no question that the plant failed to meet its expecta......
  • 730 F.Supp.2d 969 (D.Neb. 2010), 8:10CR107, United States v. Magallanes
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of Nebraska
    • August 3, 2010
    ...the court makes a de novo determination of those portions of the F & R to which the parties object. United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600-01 (8th Cir.2003). The court has conducted a de novo review of the record and exhibits, including the transcript of the suppression hearing. ......
  • Daugherty v. Dormire, 051809 MOEDC, 4:07CV1530 HEA
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Eastern District of Missouri
    • May 18, 2009
    ...a de novo review of the portions of the report, findings, or recommendations to which the party objected. See United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir.2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). This includes a de novo review of the magistrate's findings of fact, including any credi......
  • Dean v. Astrue, 090911 MOEDC, 1:10CV00086 ERW
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 9, 2011
    ...portions of the report, or specified proposed findings, or recommendations to which objection is made.'" United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). The Court will therefore conduct a de novo review of those portions of the Report and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results