Quintin Orpiano v. Gene M. Johnson, Warden W. P. Rodgers, Asst. Warden (Security) R. A. Clendenen Correctional Corporal
- Decided
- September 10, 1982
- Docket
- 81-6584
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,614 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that de novo review was still required under these decisions where a pro se litigant had objected to specific factual findings in the M&R — Moore v. Holly Hill Hospital (2025)
- concluding that de novo review was still required under these decisions where a pro se litigant had objected to specific factual findings in the M&R — Singletary v. Kijakazi (2023)
- concluding that de novo review was still required under these decisions where a pro se litigant had objected to specific factual findings in the M&R — (untitled) (2026)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
ERVIN, Circuit Judge:
This appeal raises the issues whether a prisoner’s § 1983 action was properly referred to a magistrate under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) without the prisoner’s consent, and whether the district court made a proper review of the record before accepting the magistrate’s recommendations. We hold that consent from the prisoner was not necessary to refer this case to a magistrate, but that the district court failed to make the required review of the evidence before accepting the magistrate’s recommendations. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
I.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Quintin Orpiano v. Gene M. Johnson, Warden W. P. Rodgers, Asst. Warden (Security) R. A. Clendenen Correctional Corporal, 687 F.2d 44 (1982)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.