Cutler v. Department of Health & Human Services

First Circuit

Cutler v. Department of Health & Human Services

23 F. App'x 12

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 2001

Docket00-2413

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F. App'x 12 (Cutler v. Department of Health & Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cutler v. Department of Health & Human Services, 23 F. App'x 12 (1st Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After carefully reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the decision below.

The appellant argues that because the district court neither recited in its order that it had reviewed the record de novo, nor issued its own findings and rulings, we must conclude that it erroneously allowed the magistrate to finally decide the summary judgment motion without the appellant’s consent. 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Nothing in the relevant statute or rule, however, requires the court to issue its own findings or explain the scope of its review. Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America (East), Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir.1995).

The appellant also argues that summary judgment was improper because of a factual dispute concerning whether a researcher properly invoked his right to withhold information by objecting to disclosure within the five days allotted by 45 C.F.R. § 5.65(d)(2). As the magistrate stated, however, the date of the researcher’s objection was irrelevant since the government could itself determine to withhold the information under 45 C.F.R. § 5.65(e)(1).

None of the appellant’s remaining objections rise to the level of appellate argument. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1,17 (1st Cir.1990).

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After carefully reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the decision below.

The appellant argues that because the district court neither recited in its order that it had reviewed the record de novo, nor issued its own findings and rulings, we must conclude that it erroneously allowed the magistrate to finally decide the summary judgment motion without the appellant’s consent. 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Nothing in the relevant statute or rule, however, requires the court to issue its own findings or explain the scope of its review. Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America (East), Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir.1995).

The appellant also argues that summary judgment was improper because of a factual dispute concerning whether a researcher properly invoked his right to withhold information by objecting to disclosure within the five days allotted by 45 C.F.R. § 5.65(d)(2). As the magistrate stated, however, the date of the researcher’s objection was irrelevant since the government could itself determine to withhold the information under 45 C.F.R. § 5.65(e)(1).

None of the appellant’s remaining objections rise to the level of appellate argument. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1,17 (1st Cir.1990).

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. App'x 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutler-v-department-of-health-human-services-ca1-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack