Ma v. American Electric Power Co.
697 F. App'x 448
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mary Ma sued American Electric Power (AEP) for employment discrimination; AEP prevailed at a bench trial.
- AEP moved for taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 seeking $173,368.42; the motion was referred to a magistrate judge.
- The magistrate judge issued an order awarding $103,410.29 in costs to AEP.
- Both parties objected to the magistrate judge’s order; the district court stated it conducted a "careful review" but framed its review under a clear-error standard and affirmed the magistrate judge.
- Ma appealed the award of costs to the Sixth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper statutory basis for magistrate referral (which §636 provision applies) | Referral under §636(b)(1)(A) was improper; magistrate may only issue a report and recommendation for costs | Referral under §636(b)(1)(A) was acceptable or waiver argument that Ma failed to timely object | Court: Referral for cost motions should be under §636(b)(3) (additional duties); referring under §636(b)(1)(A) is error though sometimes harmless if de novo review occurs |
| Standard of review applied by district court (de novo vs. clear-error) | District court must perform de novo review of magistrate’s report and recommendations on costs; clear-error is improper | District court asserted it carefully reviewed record but used clear-error language; AEP argued waiver of referral challenge | Court: District court abused its discretion by applying clear-error rather than de novo review; this procedural error requires dismissal and remand for de novo determination |
Key Cases Cited
- McCombs v. Meijer, Inc., 395 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 2005) (magistrate may not determine costs; district court must conduct de novo review of magistrate recommendations on costs)
- Ross v. Duggan, 402 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion review explained)
- Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 1993) (district court must conduct de novo review; magistrate cannot finally determine costs)
- Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, [citation="465 F. App'x 448"] (6th Cir. 2012) (referral under §636(b)(1)(A) was technical error but harmless where district court performed de novo review)
- Sutton v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., [citation="92 F. App'x 112"] (6th Cir. 2003) (preservation/waiver principle for objections to magistrate designation)