Nabors v. U.S., 90-1302
| Decision Date | 15 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1302,90-1302 |
| Citation | 929 F.2d 354 |
| Parties | Charles Bruce NABORS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Charles Bruce Nabors, pro se.
Kenneth F. Stoll, Little Rock, Ark., for Appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Charles Bruce Nabors appeals from the district court's orders adopting the magistrate's recommendation to dismiss Nabors's petition for habeas corpus relief and denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief. Because the district court did not conduct the required de novo review, we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Nabors filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988), which the district court referred to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued proposed findings and a recommendation to dismiss. Counsel for Nabors submitted objections to the report challenging several of the proposed findings on the basis of testimony given at the evidentiary hearing.
The district court adopted the magistrate's report in full after "a review of the[ ] proposed findings and recommendations." Nabors then filed a pro se Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the district court's order, arguing, among other things, that he had not been given a full and fair evidentiary hearing. In its order denying the motion, the district court stated that it had adopted the magistrate's recommended disposition to deny relief "[a]fter reviewing the objections submitted by defendant," and "[f]urthermore, [Nabors] was given a fair and full evidentiary hearing and filed objections to the recommended disposition that addressed [the issues]."
Although the parties have not raised on appeal the issue of whether the district court fulfilled its obligation to conduct de novo review, we are free to consider the issue sua sponte. Branch v. Martin, 886 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir.1989). In Branch we held that when specific and timely objections are made to the magistrate's findings, based on conflicting testimony or evidence, the district court must consider the actual testimony by listening to a tape recording or reading a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. Id. at 1045-46. We found that despite the district court's statement in Branch that it had conducted de novo review, "[t]he absence of a transcript or, alternatively, a tape recording, of the evidentiary hearing made de novo review impossible." Id. at 1046. Because of this deficiency in the legal process, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. More recently, in Taylor v. Farrier, 910 F.2d 518 (8th Cir.1990), this court again refused to reach the merits of the appeal and remanded the case because there was no showing that the district court had reviewed either a transcript or a tape recording of the evidentiary hearing before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooperative Finance Ass'n, Inc. v. Garst
...and the court did not assert that it had listened to a tape recording instead. Id. at 253 (citing Nabors v. United States, 929 F.2d 354, 355 & n. 1 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam); Taylor, 910 F.2d at 519-20; Branch, 886 F.2d at 1046). In Jones, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded tha......
-
Kibby v. Kemna
...particular findings or conclusions of the magistrate or asserting specific allegations of error. See, e.g., Nabors v. United States, 929 F.2d 354, 355 (8th Cir. 1990); Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir. 1990); Branch v. Martin, 886 F.2d 1043, 1046 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing Goney ......
-
Rogers v. U.S.
...objections to the recommendations as would require the district court to conduct de novo review. See, e.g., Nabors v. United States, 929 F.2d 354, 355 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam ). Rogers concedes that he did not raise on direct appeal the trial court's failure to comply with Rule 11, and h......
-
Grass v. Reitz
...particular findings or conclusions of the magistrate judge or asserting specific allegations of error. See, e.g., Nabors v. United States, 929 F.2d 354, 355 (8th Cir.1990); Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir.1990); Branch v. Martin, 886 F.2d 1043, 1046 (8th Cir.1989) (citing Gon......
-
Review Proceedings
...(district judge must determine de novo any proposed finding or recommendation to which objection is made); see, e.g. , Nabors v. U.S., 929 F.2d 354, 355 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (remanded for de novo review when no indication district judge reviewed tape or transcript of evidentiary he......