28 U.S.C. § 638

Dockets and forms; United States Code; seals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Director shall furnish to United States magistrate judges adequate docket books and forms prescribed by the Director. The Director shall also furnish to each such officer a copy of the current edition of the United States Code.(b) All property furnished to any such officer shall remain the property of the United States and, upon the termination of his term of office, shall be transmitted to his successor in office or otherwise disposed of as the Director orders.(c) The Director shall furnish to each United States magistrate judge appointed under this chapter an official impression seal in a form prescribed by the conference. Each such officer shall affix his seal to every jurat or certificate of his official acts without fee.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 917; Pub. L. 90–578, title I, § 101, Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1114; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 528, 528a (June 28, 1906, ch. 3573, 34 Stat. 546; July 10, 1946, ch. 548, 60 Stat. 525).

Section consolidates section 528 and part of section 528a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes in phraseology necessary to effect consolidation.

Provisions of section 528a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to dockets and forms, are incorporated in section 639 of this title.

Words “Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts” were substituted for “Attorney General”, contained in section 528 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., in view of Act Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 501, § 6, 53 Stat. 1226, 28 U.S.C., 1940 ed., following § 446, giving the Directors supervision of court administrative matters.

Changes in phraseology were made.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1968—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 90–578 incorporated in provisions designated as subsec. (a) provisions of first par. of former section 639 of this title, substituting “United States magistrates” for prior designation as “United States Commissioners”, specifying that the copy of the United States Code be a current edition, and dispensing with approval by the chief judge of the district court for a copy of such Code.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 90–578 incorporated in provisions designated as subsec. (b) provisions of the second par. of former section 639 of this title.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 90–578 designated existing provisions as subsec. (c), and substituted “United States magistrate” for “United States commissioner”, provision for appointment under this chapter rather than after July 10, 1946, provision that the form of the seal be prescribed by the conference rather than the Director, and “without fee” for “without additional fee”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

“United States magistrate judges” and “United States magistrate judge” substituted for “United States magistrates” and “United States magistrate”, respectively, in subsecs. (a) and (c) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of this title.

Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–578 effective Oct. 17, 1968, except when a later effective date is applicable, which is the earlier of date when implementation of amendment by appointment of magistrates [now United States magistrate judges] and assumption of office takes place or third anniversary of enactment of Pub. L. 90–578 on Oct. 17, 1968, see section 403 of Pub. L. 90–578, set out as a note under section 631 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1927–2025 · leading case: United States v. Raymond Edwards, United States of America v. David Richards

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Raymond Edwards, United States of America v. David Richards (1979) ca1 “Moreover, the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 638 , specifically provides that magistrates may not “hear and determine .”

Greenbaum v. United States (1935) ca9 · cites it 2× “Inasmuch as the necessary material was all introduced at approximately the same time, and inasmuch as it is nowhere seriously contended that the purported signature is not genuine, the error, if any, could not prejudice the defendants.”

Goins v. United States (1938) ca4 · cites it 2× “It would seem that we should assume that the 12, or at all events some of them, have a modicum of common sense.”

United States v. Angelo (1946) ca3 “683 ; 28 U.S.C.A. § 638 , which governs admission into evidence of specimens of handwriting for comparison purposes.”

Romine v. Comm'r (1956) tax “When the Board found, as it did, that the taxpayer made the waivers, it had before it the evidence which was afforded by these signatures.”

Reining v. United States (1948) ca5 “Reining personally came and acknowledged himself bound to appear in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida at Tampa, etc.”

Business Men's Assur. Co. of America v. Campbell (1929) ca8 “Code (28 USCA § 638), established the fact. A reply to defendant’s answer set up estoppel, in that, defendant’s agent requested insured to sign, a blank application for the policy sued on, the agent saying he would fill in the answers from a prior application made by insured on…”

Hampton v. Geico Insurance (2010) pawd “Subsequently, this action was removed to this Court by Defendant on March 18, 2009, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 638 (b)(1), and Local Rules of Court 72.”

Wausau Sulphate Fibre Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev. (1932) ca7 “When the Board found, as it did, that the taxpayer made the waivers, it had before it the evidence which was afforded by these signatures.”

Norris v. City of Anderson (2000) scd “In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 638 (b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.”

In Re Goldberg (1937) ca2 “28 U.S.C.A. § 638 . With those in evidence the referee was able to decide as to the admissibility of the papers bearing the disputed signatures.”

Fuston v. United States (1927) ca9 “, testified that defendant Euston was in the law office of witness while he dictated and the stenographer transcribed the answer in the contest matter, heretofore referred to, wherein Fusion signed the name “Charley Bennett” in verifying the pleading before him; also to the…”

Show all 17 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.