Arthur E. Cutler v. Department of Health and Human Services

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-2413
ARTHUR E. CUTLER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Arthur E. Cutler on brief pro se.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Mary Elizabeth
Carmody, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellees.
November 30, 2001

-- 1 of 3 --

Per Curiam. After carefully reviewing the briefs
and record on appeal, we affirm the decision below.
The appellant argues that because the district
court neither recited in its order that it had reviewed the
record de novo, nor issued its own findings and rulings, we
must conclude that it erroneously allowed the magistrate to
finally decide the summary judgment motion without the
appellant’s consent. 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72. Nothing in the relevant statute or rule, however,
requires the court to issue its own findings or explain the
scope of its review. Elmendorf Graficia, Inc., v. D.S.
America (East), Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 1995).
The appellant also argues that summary judgment was
improper because of a factual dispute concerning whether a
researcher properly invoked his right to withhold
information by objecting to disclosure within the five days
allotted by 45 C.F.R. § 5.65(d)(2). As the magistrate
stated, however, the date of the researcher’s objection was
irrelevant since the government could itself determine to
withhold the information under 45 C.F.R. § 5.65(e)(1).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
None of the appellant’s remaining objections rise
to the level of appellate argument. United States v.
Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).

-- 3 of 3 --