Douglas G. Brown v. John Gluch, 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Douglas G. Brown v. John Gluch, 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
86 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Fisher v. Wellington Exempted Village Schools Board of Education (ohnd, 2002-01-24) · Strongest negative: Hohe v. Casey (ca3, 1992-02-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Hohe v. Casey
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Cramer, supra; Jordan, 754 F.Supp. at 557 .
cited Cited "but see" Mary A. Hohe Timothy L. Cassel Joseph F. Clover, III Vickie M. Clover Steven A. Ebersole Linda R. Garman Arlene J. Hetzel Carol D. Hench Francis D.M. Hill, Jr. Mark A. Kantorczyk Nancy Lebo Gerald J. Maher Jeri Morris Jack H. Reefer, Jr. Thompson M. Young, II v. Robert P. Casey, Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Joseph L. Zazyczny, Secretary of Administration, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania G. Davis Greene, Jr., State Treasurer, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Council 13, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Leroy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Don Bailey, Auditor General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Frederick T. Marens, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Crime Commission Kenneth R. Reeher, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency William R. Shane, Chairman, Public Utility Commission Donald W. Bagenstose, Executive Director, State Public School Building Authority James H. McCormick Chancellor, State System of Higher Education Robert J. Bray, Jr
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Cramer, supra; Jordan, 754 F.Supp. at 557 .
cited Cited "see" Fisher v. Wellington Exempted Village Schools Board of Education
N.D. Ohio · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Darnell v. Campbell County Fiscal Court, No. 90-5453, 924 F.2d 1057 , 1991 WL 11255 *3 , (6th Cir. February 1, 1991) (citation omitted), unpublished.
cited Cited "see" Black v. Columbus Public Schools
S.D. Ohio · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Darnell v. Campbell County Fiscal Court, 731 F.Supp. 1309, 1313 (E.D.Ky.1990), aff'd, 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir.1991) (table).
discussed Cited "see" Weaver v. University of Cincinnati
6th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cramer v. Matish, 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir.1990) (Table), discussed infra. The court held, nevertheless, that “invalidation of the indemnification clause is not required by the First Amendment.” Hohe, 956 F.2d at 412 .
discussed Cited "see" Weaver v. The University Of Cincinnati
6th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cramer v. Matish, 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir.1990) (Table), discussed infra. The court held, nevertheless, that "invalidation of the indemnification clause is not required by the First Amendment." Hohe, 956 F.2d at 412 .
discussed Cited "see" Holo-Krome Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Active Transportation, 296 NLRB No. 58 at 5 (1989), enf'd mem., 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir.1991); Baumgardner Co., 288 NLRB 977 , 977 n. 4, enf'd mem., 866 F.2d 1411 (3d Cir.1988); American Chain Link Fence Co., 255 NLRB 692 , 693 (1981).
discussed Cited "see" Holo-Krome Company v. National Labor Relations Board
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Active Transportation, 296 NLRB No. 58 at 5 (1989), enf'd mem., 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir.1991); Baumgardner Co., 288 NLRB 977 , 977 n. 4, enf'd mem., 866 F.2d 1411 (3d Cir.1988); American Chain Link Fence Co., 255 NLRB 692 , 693 (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Smith v. County of Hamilton
6th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc., 97 F.3d at 886 (discussing with approval the finding in Darnell v. Campbell County Fiscal Court, 731 F.Supp. 1309, 1313 (E.D.Ky.1990), aff'd, 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir.1991), that an additional 20-minute drive did not impose an onerous burden).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jeffries v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
6th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Adverse Employment Actions This court has long held that “reassignments without salary or work hour changes do not ordinarily constitute adverse employment decisions in employment discrimination claims.” Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgm’t, Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 885 (6th Cir.1996) (citing Yates v. Avco Corp., 819 F.2d 630, 638 (6th Cir.1987)); see also Darnell v. Campbell County Fiscal Court, 731 F.Supp. 1309, 1313 (E.D.Ky.1990), aff'd, 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir.1991).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Union-Tribune Publishing Company v. National Labor Relations Board
7th Cir. · 1994 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Hillside Bus Corp., 262 N.L.R.B. 1254 (1982) (restrictive view) with Active Transp., 296 N.L.R.B. 431 , 432 & n. 8 (1989), enf'd mem., 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir.1991) (expansive view).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Union-Tribune Publishing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
7th Cir. · 1993 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Hillside Bus Corp., 262 N.L.R.B. 1254 (1982) (restrictive view) with Active Transp., 296 N.L.R.B. 431 , 432 & n. 8 (1989), enf'd mem., 924 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir.1991) (expansive view).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Douglas G. Brown
v.
John Gluch
90-1275.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jan 30, 1991.
924 F.2d 1057
Unpublished

924 F.2d 1057

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Douglas G. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
John GLUCH, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 90-1275.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 1991.

Before KEITH and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

Douglas Brown appeals the district court's order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the appellant waived his right to appeal by filing his objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation late, we dismiss Brown's appeal.

I.

2

The petitioner's action in district court was referred to a magistrate who recommended that Brown's application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. In his report and recommendation, the magistrate stated that objections to the report had to be filed within ten days to protect the parties' right to appeal:

3

The parties are hereby informed that objections may be filed to this Report and Recommendation within ten days of receipt of a copy thereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. [Sec. 636](b)(1)(C) and that failure to file objections may constitute a waiver of any further right of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981) states that "a party shall file objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Local Sub-Rule C-4(b).

4

Magistrate's January 23, 1990 Report and Recommendation at 4-5. Brown did not file objections to the magistrate's report until February 12, 1990, three days after the district court judge had issued his order adopting the magistrate's report and recommendation:

5

United States Magistrate Komives having filed a Report and Recommendation that this Court deny petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus and no objections having been received by this Court as of this date;

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation is adopted by this Court, and

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus is DENIED.

8

District Court's February 9, 1990 Order Adopting Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.

II.

9

This court has repeatedly held that the failure to file timely objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation results in the waiver of the right to appeal a subsequent order of the district court adopting the magistrate's report. Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 957 (6th Cir.1987); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987); Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th Cir.1986); Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814-15 (6th Cir.1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

10

In Thomas v. Arn, the United States Supreme Court noted that "[t]he Sixth Circuit's rule, by precluding appellate review of any issue not contained in objections, prevents a litigant from 'sandbagging' the district judge by failing to object and then appealing." 474 U.S. at 147-48. Because Douglas Brown failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation, Brown waived his right to appeal the district court's order.

III.

11

For the aforementioned reasons, Brown's appeal is DISMISSED.