Aluminum Co. of America, Badin Works, Badin, N.C. v. U.S. E.P.A.

Citation663 F.2d 499
Decision Date29 October 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-1599,80-1599
Parties, 12 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,699 ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, BADIN WORKS, BADIN, NORTH CAROLINA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

Charles T. Newton, Jr., Houston, Tex. (Norman D. Radford, Jr., Charles W. Schwartz, Houston, Tex., George Hanna, Moore & Van Allen, Charlotte, N. C., R. L. Holz, Judith A. Lytle, Pittsburgh, Pa., Vinson & Elkins, Houston, Tex., on brief), for appellant.

Judson W. Starr, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Christopher Herman, Environmental Protection Agency, Angus C. Macbeth, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., H. M. Michaux, Jr., U. S. Atty., Durham, N. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, District Judge. *

RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Aluminum Company of America ("Alcoa") has appealed an order of the district court denying Alcoa's Motion to Quash an Administrative Search Warrant obtained and executed by the Environmental Protection Agency to search Alcoa's Badin Works, Badin, North Carolina. The district judge referred Alcoa's motion to the United States magistrate, who filed proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law denying the motion. Upon appeal to the district court, these proposals were affirmed as being not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and Alcoa pursued this appeal.

II. FACTS

In March, 1980, officials with the Environmental Protection Agency contacted Alcoa to arrange a time for the EPA to inspect Alcoa's Badin Works to determine whether the facility was in compliance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401, et seq. The parties apparently settled upon March 25, 1980 for the inspection, but, in doing so, Alcoa informed the EPA that entry would be denied any independent contractors hired by EPA to help with the inspection. Alcoa takes the position that § 114(a)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a)(2) 1 does not allow the EPA to hire private independent contractors to aid the Agency in conducting a compliance inspection. It is Alcoa's claim that such independent contractors are not authorized representatives as that phrase is used in the Act.

Because of Alcoa's position the EPA asked for and received an ex parte administrative search warrant from the United States magistrate. The warrant specifically authorized the EPA's authorized consultant-representatives to conduct an inspection.

EPA officials, accompanied by employees of PEDCo Environmental, Inc. ("PEDCo"), a private consultant concern, and a deputy United States marshal, went to the Badin Works on March 25, 1980. Upon arrival, Alcoa's employees apparently objected to the use of the PEDCo employees and said that Alcoa's lawyers were in the process of quashing the warrant. Despite this, however, the inspection took place after the marshal indicated that he would force compliance with the warrant if need be.

Alcoa's "Motion to Quash Warrant" 2 was filed March 31, 1980, after the inspection was complete but before the return of the warrant. Without a hearing the magistrate on July 9, 1980, found that the issues raised in the motion were moot, that Alcoa had waived its right to contest the warrant, and that PEDCo's employees were authorized representatives under § 114 of the Act.

Alcoa appealed the magistrate's conclusions to the district judge, asking for a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and a hearing. No hearing was held and on August 5, 1980, the judge issued an order affirming the magistrate's rulings since it was "not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)."

III. DISCUSSION

Alcoa has appealed to this court and presented as issues to be decided on this appeal:

1. Whether the district court erred in affirming a magistrate's report under the clearly erroneous standard of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) rather than making a de novo determination as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

2. Whether the issues raised by Alcoa's motion are moot.

3. Whether § 114 of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to appoint private contractors as authorized representatives to perform compliance inspections.

This court will address the first issue for if we find that the district court did err by applying the incorrect standard of review to the magistrate's report, then a remand to the district court is appropriate and the other issues need not be addressed.

We agree with Alcoa that the district judge failed to review the magistrate's proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law properly, and the case should be remanded for a de novo determination in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

There is nothing in the record to inform this court of the authority relied on by the district court in referring the motion to the magistrate. Clearly the parties did not consent to the magistrate's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). 3 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) 4 a judge may have a magistrate decide any "pretrial matter" except certain specified motions. These exceptions are motions which Congress considered to be "dispositive." See, House Report No. 94-1609, P.L. 94-577, reprinted at (1976) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad.News 6162; see also, United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). Because under § 636(b)(1)(A) the magistrate will not be disposing of the entire case, Congress provided that the judge need only determine if the magistrate's order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law."

The judge could not have referred Alcoa's motion, therefore, under § 636(b)(1) (A). The motion was not a "pretrial matter" but set forth all of the relief requested. 5 The magistrate certainly treated it as dispositive.

Therefore, the judge had to refer the motion under § 636(b)(1)(B) 6 or § 636(b)(3). 7 Under either, the judge is obligated to review the magistrate's order by giving the parties a "de novo determination." 8 A "de novo determination" is not specifically defined in the Act, but the legislative history makes clear that it does not necessarily mean a de novo hearing. House Report No. 94-1609, P.L. 94-577, reprinted at (1976) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad.News 6162. Rather, the judge is to make "his own determination on the basis of (the) ... record (developed before the magistrate), without being bound to adopt the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate." Id. The Supreme Court has interpreted this legislative history and has written that in using the phrase "de novo determination" "Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a District Judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a Magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2412, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980).

The district judge in the case at bar applied a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review. Although this standard is not necessarily inconsistent with the requirements of a de novo determination, the district judge did not clearly indicate that he afforded the parties a de novo determination. In order to satisfy the Act, he must do so.

For this reason, we remand this case to the district court for a de novo determination without reaching the other issues presented with this appeal.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

* The Hon. Richard L. Williams, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

1 This section in pertinent part provides that for certain specified purposes:

The Administrator or his authorized representative, upon presentation of his credentials-

(A) shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through any premises of such person or in which any records required to be maintained under paragraph (1) of this section are located, and

(B) may at reasonable times have access to and copy any record, inspect any monitoring equipment or method required under paragraph (1) and sample any emissions which such person is required to sample under paragraph (1).

2 Although labeled "Motion to Quash Warrant," it is clear from the prayer for relief contained in Alcoa's pleading that it was asking for more than for the warrant to be quashed. Specifically, the pleading asked for an order

"(1) Quashing the warrant entered...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • In re Application of the United States for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • November 10, 2011
    ...a dispositive motion under either § 636(b)(1) or § 636(b)(3) because the motion to quash contained all the requested relief. 663 F.2d 499, 501–02 (4th Cir.1981). They argue that Magistrate Judge Buchanan's denial of Petitioners' motions to vacate and to unseal addressed all the relief reque......
  • Klapper v. Commonwealth Realty Trust, Civ. A. No. 85-686CMW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • June 22, 1987
    ...... and conclusions of the Magistrate." Aluminum Co. of America v. United States E.P.A., 663 F.2d ......
  • Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, 18-16254
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 24, 2019
    ...... resolution of the questions squarely before us now. I would address the issues raised by the ... to enforce a discovery summons); Aluminum Co. of Am., Badin Works, Badin, N.C. v. U.S. ......
  • U.S. v. Stauffer Chemical Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 7, 1982
    ......L. Rep. 20,810 . UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, . v. . STAUFFER CHEMICAL ... a United States Magistrate, which authorized EPA to conduct an air pollution inspection of private ... At the outset, let us frankly admit that although consistency is a ... Air Act, by the same committee (Public Works) which considered the Clean Air Act. Thus, in ... Aluminum Co. of America v. United States Environmental ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT