RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - Supreme Court

Rule 53(D) ProceedingsPrior language largely drawn from Federal Civil Rule 53 relative to special masters and largelyapplicable to situations where special masters were appointed for individual cases and were not courtemployees is eliminated. To prevent any implication that proceedings before magistrates are to follow anydifferent procedure from other civil proceedings, division (D)(1) is added. Division (D)(2) requires thatproceedings before magistrates be recorded by whatever method a particular court deems appropriate.The rule is not meant to limit courts to particular recording means, but to emphasize that, as judicialofficers of courts of record, magistrates should conduct proceedings before them on the record.Rule 53(E) Decisions in Referred MattersNew division (E) entirely replaces the prior language which required preparation of reports byreferees. Experience throughout the state demonstrated that often the report writing requirementsubstantially slowed the decision of cases without adding anything of value to the decision-makingprocess. The new rule preserves the authority of judges to require reports by so specifying in orders ofreference. In the absence of such a requirement, however, magistrates will now prepare a magistrate’sdecision [division (E)(1)]. If a party desires that the magistrate’s decision embody the detail characteristicof a referee’s report, the party may make a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Civ.R. 52, either before or after the magistrate’s decision is filed [division (E)(2)]. The fourteen-day timeperiod for objections is preserved and it begins to run only when a magistrate’s decision embodyingfindings and conclusions is filed, if they have been appropriately requested [division(E)(3)(a)].Division (E)(3)(b) prescribes the form of objections and requires that they be specific; a generalobjection is insufficient to preserve an issue for judicial consideration. The rule permits the parties to tailorthe objection process by providing that a magistrate’s findings of fact will be final. The rule reinforces thefinality of trial court proceedings by providing that failure to object constitutes a waiver on appeal of amatter which could have been raised by objection. Compare United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6 thCir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140(1985).Division (E)(4) prescribes the procedure to be followed by the court with respect to a magistrate’sdecision. Proposed decisions are effective only when adopted by the court. However, a magistrate’sdecision to which no objection is made may be adopted unless there is apparent error; the judge is nolonger required to conduct an independent review and make a determination himself or herself. The lastsentence of division (E)(4)(b), paralleling Civ. R. 59, permits a court to refuse to hear new evidence onobjections unless the evidence would not have been obtained in time to present it to the magistrate.Division (E)(4)(c) conforms existing law on interim orders to the new style of “magistrate’sdecision” as opposed to reports. No substantive change is intended.