Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Shirley Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Shirley Small v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1989-12-14
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- holding that, when a litigant is pro se, an R&R’s warning must state the consequences of failure to object and must cite 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and applicable rules of civil procedure
- holding that a pro se party's failure to object to a report-recommendation does not waive his right to appellate review unless the report explicitly states that failure to object will preclude appellate review and specifically cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a
- holding that a pro se party's failure to object to a report and recommendation does not waive his right to appellate review unless the report explicitly states that failure to object will preclude appellate review and specifically cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a
- holding that a pro se party's failure to object to a report and recommendation does not waive his right to appellate review unless the report explicitly states 2 that failure to object will preclude appellate review and specifically cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a
- holding that a pro se party's failure to object to a report and recommendation does not waive his right to appellate review unless the report explicitly states 6 that failure to object will preclude appellate review and specifically cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a
- describing exception to rule for pro se litigants unless the magistrate judge's report states that failure to object will preclude appellate review
- referring to Rule 6(d) as 6(e), as it was then numbered
- "A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Shirley Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 1666 opinions
SMALL v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,892 F.2d 15(2nd Cir. 1989)
SHIRLEY SMALL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Docket No. 89-6031.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued October 17, 1989.
Decided October 17, 1989.
Opinion December 14, 1989.
Benito Romano, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., Sapna V. Raj, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., S.D. N.Y., New York City, for defendant-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, MESKILL and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
[2] BACKGROUND
[3] Plaintiff-appellant Shirley Small (Small) sought a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on the Secretary's decision to terminate her social security income benefits. After Small failed to attend several scheduled hearings, the ALJ dismissed her request for a hearing. The Secretary's Appeals Council refused to review the ALJ's decision, and Small commenced this actionpro seto obtain review of the ALJ's dismissal pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Secretary moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that no final decision of the SecretaryPage 16existed for the district court to review.See42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (district courts may review any "final decision" of the Secretary).
[4] Pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the district court referred the motion to Magistrate Leonard Bernikow. On August 25, 1987, the magistrate issued a report recommending that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The report stated that the parties "are hereby advised of their right to file objections to this report with Judge Edelstein on or before September 14, 1987.SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 6(a), 6(e)." Small never objected to the magistrate's report, and by order dated November 28, 1988 the district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed the complaint. Small appeals from that order and the Secretary moves to dismiss the appeal for Small's failure to object to the magistrate's report.
[5] DISCUSSION
[6] We have adopted the rule that failure to object timely to a magistrate's report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate's decision.Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd.,838 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1988);see McCarthy v. Manson,714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir. 1983);John B. Hull, Inc. v. WaterburyPetroleum Prods., Inc.,588 F.2d 24, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1978),cert. denied,440 U.S. 960, 99 S.Ct. 1502, 59 L.Ed.2d 773 (1979). The Supreme Court upheld this practice, at least when the parties receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object.See Thomas v. Arn,474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 474, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). In the present case, the magistrate's report notified the parties of the ten day time limit on their right to object, but made no mention of our rule that failure to object will preclude further judicial review. Moreover, even if Small had attempted to locate the specific Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cited at the end of the magistrate's report, none of those rules would have informed her of the potential waiver of appellate review because our waiver rule is set forth only in case law. To require apro seplaintiff such as Small to wade through the case law of this Circuit in order to preserve her right to appellate review would be an unreasonable burden.
[7] Accordingly, we hold that apro separty's failure to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation within the ten day time limit prescribed by28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) does not operate as a waiver of the right to appellate review of the district court's adoption of the magistrate's recommendation unless the magistrate's report explicitly states that failure to object to the report within ten (10) days will preclude appellate review and specifically cites28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and rules 72, 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[8] Motion denied.