Thompson v. Nix, 89-1817

Citation897 F.2d 356
Decision Date01 March 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-1817,89-1817
PartiesTimothy THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Crispus NIX; John Henry; John Emmett; Shift Supervisor "Unknown"; Team Members--Lawson, Snider & Spangler; Marty Rung; Rich Barlow; Officer Schneider; Officer Burns, Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Mark C. Feldmann, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.

Susan Achen, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellees.

Before BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Thompson, an Iowa prisoner, appeals from a final order of the District Court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 suit following an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate. Thompson alleged in his complaint that Iowa prison officials violated his eighth and fourteenth amendment rights by physically assaulting him on two occasions. Because the magistrate's report and recommendation contained factual errors, we vacate the District Court's order adopting the report, and remand for further proceedings.

The District Court referred Thompson's complaint to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B) to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to file a report and recommendation as to disposition of the case. The magistrate's report and recommendation contained an extensive review of the evidence presented at the hearing. The magistrate's proposed findings of fact, however, contained references to a smoking incident, the prison yard, and return of the prisoner from a courtroom, facts which were not included in the magistrate's review of the evidence and are unsupported by the evidentiary hearing transcript. It appears that evidence from another case inadvertently was included in the report and recommendation on this case.

The magistrate recommended that the complaint be dismissed and allotted the parties fourteen days to object to the report and recommendation. No objections were filed. The District Court accepted the magistrate's report and recommendation and dismissed the complaint.

The previously-mentioned discrepancies in the magistrate's proposed findings of fact, adopted by the District Court, constitute plain error. See Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982) (en banc) (magistrate's findings of fact reviewed for plain error where no objections made). Accordingly, we vacate the District Court's order dismissing the suit and remand with instructions to the District Court to resubmit the case to the magistrate for preparation of a corrected report and recommendation. All parties shall then be allowed ten days, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1), to file written objections to the magistrate's corrected report and recommendation, unless an extension for good cause is obtained. If written objections are filed, the District Court shall conduct the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1231 cases
  • Langdeaux v. Lund
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • April 21, 2015
    ...§ 636(b)(1) (emphasis added). In most cases, to trigger de novo review, "objections mustbe timely and specific." Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990). However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has been willing to "liberally construe[]" otherwise general pro se objections......
  • Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 28, 1996
    ...reviews accepted unobjected-to proposed factual findings for plain error. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d at 692; Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir.1990). As noted, Griffini cited Nettles, but omitted any reference to review for "manifest The Ninth Circuit, in Martinez v. Ylst, ......
  • Houghton v. Sipco, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • July 8, 1993
    ...pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir.1990). Objections must specify the parts of the record, including exhibits and transcript lines, which form the basis for such objectio......
  • Grba-Craghead v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • October 28, 2009
    ...obtained, and that failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir.1990). Dated this 7th day of October, 1. Plaintiff's May 15, 2006 application for benefits is the fourth application she has filed......
  • 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