Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan adopts the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, overrules the plaintiff’s objections, and denies the motion to settle the appellate record. The court holds that the existing scheduling and dismissal orders adequately document the relevant proceedings and constitute the best available means of presenting the record, making further reconstruction under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c) unnecessary.
Holdings
- The court assumed without deciding that a request to complete the record of the telephonic scheduling conference was nominally governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c).
- No further Rule 10(c) settlement of the record was necessary because the court orders memorializing the scheduling conference and the dismissal provided the best available means of presenting the relevant proceedings for appellate review.
Questions Presented
- Whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c) applied to the off-the-record telephonic scheduling conference.
- Whether the district court needed to use the Rule 10(c) procedure to settle the appellate record when the scheduling conference and the dismissal proceedings were fully described in court orders.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- United States v. Locust, 95 F. App'x 507, 511 (4th Cir. 2004)(cited)
- Athridge v. Rivas, 141 F.3d 357, 361-62 (D.C. Cir. 1998)(cited)
- Foley v. Orange County, Florida, No. 12-269, 2013 WL 12158615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2013)(cited)
- Blakely v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., No. 23-2272, 2024 WL 1869366, at *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 29, 2024)(cited)
- Brown Inv. Advisory & Tr. Co. v. Allen, No. 19-2332, 2021 WL 2141377, at *2 (D. Md. May 26, 2021)(cited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…