Goney v. Clark, No. 83-5861
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | Before ALDISERT, Chief Judge, HUNTER and WEIS; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 749 F.2d 5 |
| Parties | Alvin E. GONEY, Appellant, v. James E. CLARK, Jr., Warden, Fayette County Jail. . Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-5861 |
Page 5
v.
James E. CLARK, Jr., Warden, Fayette County Jail.
Third Circuit.
Oct. 1, 1984.
Page 6
James D. Crawford, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Phillip T. Warman, County Sol., Fayette County, Uniontown, Pa., for appellee.
Before ALDISERT, Chief Judge, HUNTER and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ali v. Grounds, Case No. 14–cv–00898–BAS–WVG
...of the report and recommendation will trigger de novo review—general or conclusory objections do not suffice. See, e.g. , Goney v. Clark , 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984) (finding that de novo review of magistrate's report was not required where appellant's objections were "general in nature" ......
-
Xavier v. Harlow, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-1235
...28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). However, this applies only to the extent that a party's objections are both timely and specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir.1984). In conducting a de novo review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or le......
-
Banks v. Gallagher, Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-1110.
...Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.1989), provided the objections are both timely and specific, Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). In its de novo review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or legal conclusions of t......
-
Goodwin v. Moyer, No. 3:CV-05-781.
...findings and recommendations. See id.; see also Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir.1984). DISCUSSION: As the Magistrate Judge submitted, in order for a plaintiff to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must establish......
-
Ali v. Grounds, Case No. 14–cv–00898–BAS–WVG
...of the report and recommendation will trigger de novo review—general or conclusory objections do not suffice. See, e.g. , Goney v. Clark , 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984) (finding that de novo review of magistrate's report was not required where appellant's objections were "general in nature" ......
-
Xavier v. Harlow, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-1235
...28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). However, this applies only to the extent that a party's objections are both timely and specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir.1984). In conducting a de novo review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or le......
-
Banks v. Gallagher, Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-1110.
...Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.1989), provided the objections are both timely and specific, Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). In its de novo review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or legal conclusions of t......
-
Goodwin v. Moyer, No. 3:CV-05-781.
...findings and recommendations. See id.; see also Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir.1984). DISCUSSION: As the Magistrate Judge submitted, in order for a plaintiff to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must establish......