November 7, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1458
GLADYS L. COK, ETC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
MICHAEL FORTE,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Gladys L. Cok on brief pro se.
Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General, and Richard B. Woolley,
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. Upon review of the entire record, we
agree that the complaint was properly dismissed and affirm
essentially for the reasons stated in the magistrate's
December 19, 1994, report and recommendation which was
adopted by the district court. Cok v. Forte, 877 F. Supp.
797 (D.R.I. 1995). We are also persuaded that the imposition
of a narrow, well-defined injunction against plaintiff Cok
was justified. The basis for the injunction is well
supported in the record. The filing restrictions set out in
the order are grounded in a comprehensive history of Cok's
ten-years of litigation, were entered after notice, hearing
and the opportunity to object, and are unambiguously
"tailored to the specific circumstances presented." Cok v.
Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 34 (1st Cir.
1993).
We add these additional comments. Plaintiffs
contend that they never consented to have their case heard by
a magistrate-judge, that the magistrate exceeded the scope of
his authority and that the district judge, in adopting the
magistrate's recommended disposition, including the proposed
injunction, failed to conduct a de novo review as mandated by
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). First, while a magistrate lacks
authority to issue a dispositive order, including an order
allowing an injunction, without the consent of the parties to
a decision by a magistrate, 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), section
636(b)(1)(B) permits a district judge to refer a motion for
injunctive relief to a magistrate for a proposed disposition
without the parties' consent. Here, the magistrate merely
recommended the imposition of an injunction; he did not order
it. Second, plaintiffs filed timely objections to the
magistrate's report. In accepting that report, the district
court especially noted and approved the wording of the narrow
injunction proposed by the magistrate. The docket shows that
the district judge had, on a number of occasions, examined
Cok's claims before referring them to the magistrate. We
will not presume, in the absence of contrary indicia, that
the district court conducted anything other than a complete
review of the record. See United States v. Hamell, 931 F.2d
466, 468 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 347 (1991).
Affirmed.
Appellant's motion for oral argument is denied.
Appellant's request for declaratory relief is
denied.
-3-