Also known as: clearly erroneous · contrary to law · clearly erroneous standard · contrary to law standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A deferential standard of review that permits a district judge to modify or set aside a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive pretrial matter only when the order rests on a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed or applies an incorrect legal rule.
Crestview Holdings moved to compel production of internal emails in a contract dispute. The magistrate judge denied the motion after finding the requests overbroad. On timely objection the district judge reviewed the order and concluded that the magistrate had properly balanced relevance against burden. The district judge therefore left the denial in place.
After conviction Caleb Chang filed a habeas petition alleging counsel failed to investigate alibi witnesses. The magistrate judge recommended denial. The district judge examined the record and determined that counsel's strategic choices fell within the wide range of reasonable performance. The recommendation was adopted without modification.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cecilia Cabrera sued state hospital officials seeking structural changes to patient care. The magistrate judge denied a motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. The district judge reviewed the order and found that the magistrate had correctly applied sovereign-immunity doctrine. The denial stood unchanged.
Claire Campbell claimed sex discrimination after her city employer passed her over for promotion. The magistrate judge resolved a discovery dispute by crediting the employer's affidavit that records had been destroyed in good faith. The district judge reviewed the order and found no clear error in the credibility assessment. The ruling remained intact.
Coastal Shipping sued a consumer group for a critical report on its safety record. The magistrate judge denied a motion to strike certain paragraphs as opinion. The district judge reviewed the order and determined that the magistrate had correctly distinguished fact from opinion under controlling precedent. The denial was left undisturbed.
Cypress Technologies demanded a jury trial on a fraudulent-transfer claim assigned to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge struck the demand. The district judge reviewed the order and concluded that the magistrate had correctly applied Seventh Amendment principles to the statutory claim. The strike order was affirmed.
The district judge must modify or set aside any part of the order shown to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. This standard requires deference to the magistrate's factual determinations while permitting correction of legal error.
Supporting sources
Yes. Under the applicable rules a party that fails to file timely objections waives the right to review of the order. The district judge need not consider unobjected-to portions on its own initiative.
Supporting sources
The district judge must give due regard to the magistrate's opportunity to assess witness credibility. A finding based on live testimony will not be disturbed unless the record leaves the reviewing court with a definite conviction that a mistake occurred.
Supporting sources
The governing statute permits the district judge to reconsider any pretrial matter decided by a magistrate judge when it has been shown that the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Timely objection is the ordinary vehicle but is not an absolute prerequisite to district-court review.
Supporting sources
…See also 7 Record 648-649. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires that "[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous," and neither Rudzewicz nor the Court of Appeals has pointed to record evidence that would support a "definite and firm conviction" that the District Court's findings are mistaken. United…