United States v. Raddatz

Holding that a trial judge's adoption of a magistrate judge's findings related to a suppression hearing does not violate due process "so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court"

Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif

Holding that, under Article III, litigants may validly consent to adjudication by bankruptcy courts over claims governed by Stern v. Marshall , 564 U.S. 462, 503, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 —i.e., "claim designated for final adjudication in the bankruptcy court as a statutory matter, but prohibited from proceeding in that way as a constitutional matter"

Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.

Holding that the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 was unconstitutional in part because it allowed bankruptcy courts to adjudicate state common law claims

Gomez v. United States

Holding that voir dire erroneously conducted by a magistrate judge without the parties' consent could not "meaningfully" be reviewed, because such voir dire turned on "not only spoken words but also gestures and attitudes of all participants to ensure the jury's impartiality"

Peretz v. United States

Holding that a criminal defendant in a felony trial may consent to jury selection presided over by a magistrate judge: no structural issues were implicated because magistrates were appointed and subject to removal by Article III judges; the district court made the ultimate decision to invoke the magistrate's assistance, subject to veto by the parties; and the decision whether to empanel the jury whose selection was overseen by the magistrate remained entirely with the trial judge

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor

Holding that the CFTC's adjudicative functions did not violate separation of powers

Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Industries

Holding that although the district court had reviewed the record thoroughly, it had done so "constrained by the assumption that the magistrate's order must be affirmed absent clear error," and therefore remanding for the court to "review the record in light of its own independent judgment"

First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Smith

Holding that a magistrate judge's remand order is dispositive because "it is very similar in effect to an involuntary dismissal"

In re U.S. Healthcare

Holding that a motion to remand is dispositive because "it preclusively determines the important point that there will not be a federal forum available to entertain a particular dispute"

Vogel v. U.S. Office Products Co.

Holding that a remand order entered by a magistrate judge was beyond his statutory authority and concluding that review was proper because the court of appeals was not reviewing the merits of the remand order itself

Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

Rule 4 - Summons

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Section 4 - Precedence of associate justices