Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:76-CV-1246-R
December 11, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On January 11, 2002, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating this Court's Order of June 21, 2000 adopting the recommendations of the special master in this case. Shafer v. Army Air Force Exchange Service, 277 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2002) (the "Opinion"). The Fifth Circuit held that this Court, in adopting the recommendations of the special master, failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 53(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a "court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous." FED.R.CIV.P. 53(e)(2). The Opinion stated that Rule 53(e)(2):
impos[es] an independent obligation on the district court to review the Special Master's factual findings for clear error. See, e.g., Livas v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 607 F.2d 118, 119 (5th Cir. 1979); W.R.B. Corp. v. Geer, 313 F.2d 750, 753 (5th Cir. 1964) ("A Court at some stage must determine as a judicial matter that the findings meet [the clear error standard]."); Charles Alan Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2614 (1995) ("The parties are entitled to actual review by the court to determine whether the findings are clearly erroneous."). This duty includes examining all relevant evidence, including in some cases the hearing transcripts in their entirety. Livas, 607 F.2d at 119.
In this case, the Fifth Circuit continued:
the district court adopted the Special Master's recommendations prior to receiving either the transcript of the hearing or any of the exhibits from the parties . . . . Given the complicated factual nature of Parks' claims, the district court could not have properly fulfilled its obligation under Rule 53 without reviewing the hearing transcripts.
. . . the sufficiency of the Special Master's findings is an issue that must first be determined by the district court. Id Therefore, the judgment of the district court is VACATED. We REMAND this case so that the district court may conduct the required review of the Special Master's factual findings.Shafer, 277 F.3d at 790-91.
Pursuant to the Opinion, this Court has now reviewed the evidence in this case. Specifically, this Court has examined the Special Master's Recommendations, the exhibits and transcripts from the hearing held by the special master in April and May of 1996, the supplemental briefing provided by the parties, as well as the other evidence in the voluminous record of this case. After conducting the review mandated by Rule 53(e)(2) and the Opinion, this Court finds that the Special Master's Recommendations are thorough, correct and supported by the evidence in the factual record. As such, this Court hereby ADOPTS the Special Master's Recommendations in their entirety. In addition, this Court RESTATES the clarifications made to the Special Master's Recommendations by this Court's Memorandum Order dated April 11, 2000 and Addendum to Memorandum Order dated April 18, 2000.