Jurisdiction, Preservation & the Failure to Object to a Magistrate Judge’s Order
In United States v. Cabrera-Rivas, the Fourth Circuit held that failure to object to a magistrate judge’s decision does not affect appellate jurisdiction. The failure instead implicates preservation. In so holding, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the Sixth Circuit but split with the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits.
The Unobjected Magistrate Judge Decision
As relevant to the present discussion, the defendant in Cabrera-Rivas sought a hearing on his competency to stand trial. A magistrate judge presided over the competency hearing and deemed the defendant competent. The defendant did not object to this decision, nor did he ask the district court judge to review it.
The defendant was eventually convicted of two drug charges. He appealed. In that appeal, he challenged (among other things) the competency determination. But the government argued that the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s decision deprived the Fourth Circuit of jurisdiction over that aspect of the appeal.
Jurisdiction or Preservation?
The Fourth Circuit disagreed.
To be sure, courts of appeals normally cannot hear appeals directly from a magistrate judge’s order. Those orders often aren’t “final decisions of the district courts” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
But the defendant in Cabrera-Rivas appealed from his conviction—a final, appealable decision. And the appeal encompassed all orders that merged into his final judgment of conviction.
The real argument was preservation—i.e., that failure to object forfeited the issue for appeal. And preservation doesn’t affect jurisdiction. “Otherwise, plain-error review would be unlawful.” So appellate jurisdiction existed.
A Deepened Split
In so holding, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the Sixth Circuit, which has held that it “retains subject matter jurisdiction over [an] appeal regardless of the untimely filing or nonfiling of objections.” The Fourth Circuit also found unpersuasive contrary decisions from the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits.
On the merits, there was no clear error in the competency determination.
United States v. Cabrera-Rivas, 2025 WL 1788971 (4th Cir. June 30, 2025), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In McGruder v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, the Sixth Circuit said that it would address a judicial-estoppel defense raised for the first time after the defendant had filed its notice of appeal. The Sixth Circuit framed this issue as one implicating the content and timing requirements for a notice of appeal. The […]
Continue reading....
In Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Edwards, the Ninth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Dupree v. Younger to permit review of part of a summary-judgment denial. In the course of doing so, the court rejected the argument that the denied summary-judgment motion needed to have been potentially dispositive as to the need for […]
Continue reading....
I’ve been following the circuit split over preserving purely legal issues via denied summary-judgment motions for some time. Now, the Supreme Court has finally resolved it. In Dupree v. Younger, the Court held that a denied summary-judgment motion preserves a purely legal issue. Litigants thus do not need to re-raise those issues in post-trial motions […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court held in Ortiz v. Jordan that parties cannot appeal evidence-sufficiency issues raised in a denied summary-judgment motion after a trial on the merits. Parties must instead raise issues with the sufficiency of the trial evidence via a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. But Ortiz left open the possibility that […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court held in Ortiz v. Jordan that parties cannot appeal evidence-sufficiency issues raised in a denied summary-judgment motion after a trial on the merits. Parties must instead raise issues with the sufficiency of the trial evidence via a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. But Ortiz left open the possibility that […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....