James LIVAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE MOVIBLE OFFSHORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee

Fifth Circuit

James LIVAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE MOVIBLE OFFSHORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee

607 F.2d 118, 21 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 505, 28 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 590, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 10350, 21 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 30,486

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1979

Docket79-1762

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 607 F.2d 118 (James LIVAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE MOVIBLE OFFSHORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James LIVAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE MOVIBLE OFFSHORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 607 F.2d 118, 21 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 505, 28 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 590, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 10350, 21 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 30,486 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this Title VII case Livas alleges that he was fired for racial reasons. Without objection his case was referred for trial to a Magistrate as Special Master under F.R. Civ.P. Rule 53. The order of reference required the master to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. After hearing the master recommended that judgment be entered for defendant. No objections to the findings and conclusions were filed.

On January 15, 1979, the court approved the master’s findings and recommendations and adopted them as its opinion and entered judgment for defendant.

The district court has the obligation to determine that the findings of the master are not clearly erroneous. F.R. Civ.P. 53(e)(2); see W.R.B. Corporation v. Gerr, 313 F.2d 750, 753 (CA5), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 841, 85 S.Ct. 78, 13 L.Ed.2d 47 (1964); General Plywood Corp. v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 362 F.Supp. 700, 704 (S.D.Ga., 1973), aff’d, 504 F.2d 515 (CA5, 1974). Here the master’s findings were based on credibility choices among witnesses concerning the reasons for Livas’s discharge. The district court could not pass on whether the findings of the master were clearly erroneous without a transcript. The transcript of the proceedings had not then been prepared and was not prepared until March 19.

Livas did not object to the findings of the Magistrate as permitted by Rule 53(e)(2). This does not, however, bar him from raising the independent obligation of the court to determine that the master’s findings are not clearly erroneous.

The transcript of the proceedings before the Master is before us on appeal, but the sufficiency of the master’s findings is an issue that must be determined by the district court in the first instance.

VACATED and REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this Title VII case Livas alleges that he was fired for racial reasons. Without objection his case was referred for trial to a Magistrate as Special Master under F.R. Civ.P. Rule 53. The order of reference required the master to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. After hearing the master recommended that judgment be entered for defendant. No objections to the findings and conclusions were filed.

On January 15, 1979, the court approved the master’s findings and recommendations and adopted them as its opinion and entered judgment for defendant.

The district court has the obligation to determine that the findings of the master are not clearly erroneous. F.R. Civ.P. 53(e)(2); see W.R.B. Corporation v. Gerr, 313 F.2d 750, 753 (CA5), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 841, 85 S.Ct. 78, 13 L.Ed.2d 47 (1964); General Plywood Corp. v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 362 F.Supp. 700, 704 (S.D.Ga., 1973), aff’d, 504 F.2d 515 (CA5, 1974). Here the master’s findings were based on credibility choices among witnesses concerning the reasons for Livas’s discharge. The district court could not pass on whether the findings of the master were clearly erroneous without a transcript. The transcript of the proceedings had not then been prepared and was not prepared until March 19.

Livas did not object to the findings of the Magistrate as permitted by Rule 53(e)(2). This does not, however, bar him from raising the independent obligation of the court to determine that the master’s findings are not clearly erroneous.

The transcript of the proceedings before the Master is before us on appeal, but the sufficiency of the master’s findings is an issue that must be determined by the district court in the first instance.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 F.2d 118, 21 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 505, 28 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 590, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 10350, 21 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 30,486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-livas-plaintiff-appellant-v-teledyne-movible-offshore-inc-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack