From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gleason v. Secretary of Health and Human

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Nov 19, 1985
777 F.2d 1324 (8th Cir. 1985)

Summary

dismissing appeal from magistrate judge's ruling on motion for attorneys' fees for lack of final judgement where there was no "clear and unambiguous statement in the record of the affected parties' consent to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Harris v. Folk Construction Co.

Opinion

No. 85-5097.

November 19, 1985.

David A. Stofferahn, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

Mimi H. Leahy, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, and BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.


ORDER

This appeal arose from an action commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking review of the Secretary's denial of Helen M. Gleason's claim for social security benefits. The case was assigned to Judge Donald D. Alsop, who referred it to Magistrate Brian P. Short. Magistrate Short recommended that the court reverse the Secretary's decision and remand the matter to the Secretary for a determination of the amount of benefits owed. Judge Alsop issued an order, following the magistrate's recommendation. Subsequently, Gleason petitioned for $1,332.82 in attorneys' fees, which represented twenty-five percent of the past-due benefits Gleason was awarded. Magistrate Short issued an order granting attorneys' fees, but reducing the amount to $821.25. Gleason appealed from this order.

A magistrate's decision is final and directly appealable to this Court if issued under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). If, however, the decision is issued pursuant to section 636(b), initial review rests with the district court. Glover v. Alabama Bd. of Corrections, 660 F.2d 120, 121-22 (5th Cir. 1981). Section 636(c) requires a clear and unambiguous statement in the record of both parties' consent to the magistrate's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Ambrose v. Welch, 729 F.2d 1084, 1085 (6th Cir. 1984); Glover, 660 F.2d at 123-24. No such statement is contained in this record.

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a notice of appeal from any final, appealable order entered in this cause by the district court.


Summaries of

Gleason v. Secretary of Health and Human

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Nov 19, 1985
777 F.2d 1324 (8th Cir. 1985)

dismissing appeal from magistrate judge's ruling on motion for attorneys' fees for lack of final judgement where there was no "clear and unambiguous statement in the record of the affected parties' consent to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Harris v. Folk Construction Co.

dismissing appeal of magistrate judge's grant of attorneys' fees for lack of jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Rajaratnam v. Moyer
Case details for

Gleason v. Secretary of Health and Human

Case Details

Full title:HELEN M. GLEASON, APPELLANT, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Nov 19, 1985

Citations

777 F.2d 1324 (8th Cir. 1985)

Citing Cases

Singletary v. Dobey

Absent both designation by the district court and consent of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), a…

Reiter v. Honeywell, Inc.

As our cases make clear, "[s]ection 636(c) requires a clear and unambiguous statement in the record of the…