Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:95-cr-00198-02.
April 3, 2007
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the movant's motion to correct court's erroneous delegation to Bureau of Prisons to make payment schedule for fine imposed [Docket 510]. This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and recommended that the court deny the defendant's motion because this court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant's motion, which should have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because the defendant is confined in the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana, the Magistrate Judge found that the defendant must file his petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The defendant timely filed written objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and recommendation. Mr. Little objects to the Magistrate Judge presiding over his criminal action. He asserts that he did not consent to have his motion decided by a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The defendant misconstrues the nature of a referral to a Magistrate Judge. When a court refers a matter to a Magistrate Judge for submission to the court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), it is the district court who ultimately decides the case. The Magistrate Judge provides a recommendation, however, that recommendation is not binding in any way upon the court. Moreover, the district court conducts a de novo review of a movant's claims if the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are objected to by either party. Mr. Little's consent would only be required if the court had delegated to the Magistrate Judge the authority to enter judgment in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Here, that was not the case. This case was referred to the Magistrate Judge under § 636(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, the defendant's objection to having the Magistrate Judge presiding over his case is DENIED.
Having reviewed the defendant's remaining objections de novo, I find that they are without merit. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and DENIES the defendant's motion.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Stanley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.