green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2021–2022 ·
…de novo review is statutorily and constitutionally required when written objections to a magistrate's report are timely filed with the district court.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Tracy v. Simplifi
de novo review is statutorily and constitutionally required when written objections to a magistrate's report are timely filed with the district court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jenkins v. Haaland
de novo review is statutorily and constitutionally required when written objections to a magistrate's report are timely filed with the district court.
cited
Cited "see"
Major v. Washington State Department of Corrections
See Dkt. 54 at 1. 1 Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 )).
cited
Cited "see"
Soverns v. Astrue
See Campbell v. United, States District Court for the Northern District of California, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Barnhart
See Campbell v. United States District Court for the Northern Dist. of California, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Goodwin v. Barnhart
See Campbell v. United States District Court for the Northern Dist. of California, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d at 1167 (holding that “[i]n the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Advance Coating Technology, Inc. v. LEP Chemical Ltd.
See Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974)). 2 A district court’s obligation to make a de novo determination of properly contested portions of a magistrate’s report does not require a second evidentiary hearing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Coronado v. Lefevre
See Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974)). 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) affords the district court broad latitude in considering a magistrate’s recommendation, even if no party objects to it.
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson-El v. District of Columbia
See Thomas v. Pate, 493 F.2d 151, 158 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974): [The] question would be, we think, whether it had been proved that a physician exercising ordinary skill and care at the time of the request for medical care would have concluded that the symptoms of the prisoner evidenced a serious disease or injury; that the potential for harm by reason of delay or denial of medical care was substantial; and that such harm did result.
discussed
Cited "see"
McAllister Bros., Inc. v. Ocean Marine Indem. Co.
See Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974). 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) affords the district court broad latitude in considering a magistrate’s recommendation, and the court is not bound by the recommendation, even if no party objects to it.
discussed
Cited "see"
Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff
See Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974)).
discussed
Cited "see"
East River Savings Bank v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
See Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., Notes of Advisory Corn-mittee on Rules (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Walker v. Hood
See Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Knop v. Johnson
See Thomas v. Pate, 493 F.2d 151, 155 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1975); accord Bazemore v. Friday, — U.S. -, -, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 3016-17 , 92 L.Ed.2d 315, 339-41 (1986) (Brennan, J., dissenting in part); Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 437-38 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Arn
(2×)
See n. 1, supra. [9] Petitioner points to a passage in the House Report that quotes from Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F. 2d 196, 206 (CA9), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 879 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nelson v. Smith
See Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bekoff
See Campbell v. United States Dist Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Webb v. Califano
In response to the defendant’s argument that the district court would automatically accept the recommendations of the magistrate, the Court declared: “We categorically reject the suggestion that judges will accept, uncritically, recommendations of magistrates.” Id. 423 U.S. at 274 , 96 S.Ct. at 556 , 46 L.Ed.2d at 493 , followed in Gray v. Califano, 448 F.Supp. 1142, 1146 (S.D.Cal. 1978); see Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974); Health Corp. v. New Jersey Dental Ass’n, 77 F.R.D. 488 (D…
discussed
Cited "see"
Boyce v. Alizaduh
See Thomas v. Pate (7th Cir. 1974) 493 F.2d 151, 158 , cert, denied 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (plaintiff brought to attention of nurse his allergy to penicillin, but was nonetheless given shot with bad results); Williams v. Vincent (2d Cir. 1974) 508 F.2d 541, 544 (choice of less efficacious treatment than that requested by plaintiff-prisoner may amount to deliberate indifference.) Both of these cases are cited with approval in Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, n. 14 , 97 S.Ct. 285 . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Winfrey and Glenn McGhee v. Lou Brewer, Warden
See Thomas v. Pate, 493 F.2d 151, 162 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974); Adams v. Campbell County School District, 483 F.2d 1351, 1353 (10th Cir. 1973). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kallir, Philips, Ross, Inc.
See Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 205-07 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974); cf. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 269-75 , 96 S.Ct. 549 , 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Leonard Andrews v. Edward W. Maher, Successor to Nicholas Norton, Individually and as Commissioner of Welfare, State of Connecticut
Accord, Randall v. Goldmark, 495 F.2d 356, 359 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 144 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974); contra, Blue v. Craig, 505 F.2d 830 (4th Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roberts v. Samardvich
See Burns v. Head Jailor of LaSalle County Jail, 576 F.Supp. 618, 620 (N.D.Ill.1984); see also Thomas v. Pate, 493 F.2d 151, 158 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Scott v. Central Maine Power Co.
See also Randall v. Goldmark, 495 F.2d 356, 358 (1st Cir.) (“[Tjhere is no pendent jurisdiction ... if the constitutional claim is totally insubstantial.”), cer t. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 144 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Kenneth Moran v. Paul J. Morris, Warden
See also Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206-07 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 *902 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pinto v. Clark
Compare Blue v. Craig, 505 F.2d 830, 842 (4th Cir. 1974), with Randall v. Goldmark, 495 F.2d 356, 360 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 144 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fred A. Cruz, Etc. v. W. B. (Bill) Hauck
Compare CAB v. Carefree Travel, Inc., 513 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1975) and Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 , 95 S.Ct. 143 , 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1975) with Wedding v. Wingo, 483 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1973) (alternate holding), aff’d on other grounds, 418 U.S. 461 , 94 S.Ct. 2842 , 41 L.Ed.2d 879 (1974) and TPO, Inc. v. McMillen, 460 F.2d 348 (7th Cir. 1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Estrada
v.
California
v.
California
No. 73-6925.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 1974.
Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.