US · rules

D. Minn. LR 72.2

Review of Magistrate Judge Rulings

activein force · 2022-09-29 – presentact-effective-date

(a) Nondispositive Matters. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s

claim or defense is referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, a party may seek

review of the magistrate judge’s order on the matter as follows:

(1) Objections. A party may file and serve objections to the order within

14 days after being served with a copy, unless the court sets a different

deadline. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely

objected to.

(2) Response. A party may respond to another party’s objections within

14 days after being served with a copy.

(3) Review by District Judge.

(A) Except as provided in LR 72.2(a)(3)(B), the district judge must

consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the

order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

(B) When a motion to amend a pleading is opposed on grounds

of futility and a party seeks review of the magistrate judge's

determination of the issue of futility, the district court will review the

futility determination de novo.

matter decided by the magistrate judge but not objected to.

(b) Dispositive Motions and Prisoner Petitions. When, without the parties’

consent, a pretrial matter dispositive of a party’s claim or defense or a prisoner petition

challenging the conditions of confinement is assigned to and heard by a magistrate judge,

a party may seek review of the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition as follows:

(1) Objections and Transcript. A party may file and serve specific written

objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations

within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended

disposition, unless the court sets a different deadline. Unless the district

judge orders otherwise, the objecting party must promptly arrange for

transcribing the record, or whatever portions of it the parties agree to or the

magistrate judge deems sufficient.

(2) Response. A party may respond to another party’s objections within

14 days after being served with a copy.

(3) Review by District Judge. The district judge must determine de novo

any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly

objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the

recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to

the magistrate judge with instructions. Ordinarily, the district judge does not

conduct a new hearing when ruling on a party’s objections, but instead relies

on the record of proceedings before the magistrate judge.

(1) Word or Line Limits.

(A) Except with the court’s prior permission, objections or a

response to objections filed under LR 72.2 must not exceed 3,500

words if set in a proportional font, or 320 lines of text if set in a

monospaced font.

(B) All text — including headings, footnotes, and quotations —

counts toward these limits, except for:

(i) the caption designation required by LR 5.2;

(ii) the signature-block text; and

(iii) certificates of compliance.

permission to do so by filing and serving a letter of no more than two

pages requesting such permission. A party who opposes such a

request may file and serve a letter of no more than two pages in

response. This rule authorizes the parties to file those letters by

ECF.

(2) Type Size.

(A) Represented Parties. Objections or a response to objections

filed by a represented party must be typewritten. All text, including

footnotes, must be set in at least font size 13 (i.e., a 13-point font) as

font sizes are designated in the word-processing software used to

prepare the objections or response to objections. Text must be

double-spaced, with these exceptions: headings and footnotes may

be single-spaced, and quotations more than two lines long may be

indented and single-spaced. Pages must be 8 ½ by 11 inches in

size, and no text — except for page numbers — may appear outside

an area measuring 6 ½ by 9 inches.

(B) Unrepresented Parties. Objections or a response to

objections filed by an unrepresented party must be either typewritten

and double-spaced or, if handwritten, printed legibly.

(3) Certificate of Compliance. Objections or a response to objections

must be accompanied by a certificate executed by the party’s attorney, or

by an unrepresented party, affirming that the document complies with the

limits in LR 72.2(c)(1) and with the type-size limit of LR 72.2(c)(2). The

certificate must further state how many words (if set in a proportional font)

or how many lines (if set in a monospaced font) the document contains.

The person preparing the certificate may rely on the word-count or line-count function of his or her word-processing software only if he or she

certifies that the function was applied specifically to include all text, including

headings, footnotes, and quotations. The certificate must include the name

and version of the word-processing software that was used to generate the

word count or line count.

History

[Adopted effective February 1, 1991; amended May 17, 2004, amended May 16, 2005; amended September 24, 2009; amended December 1, 2009; amended July 23, 2012; amended May 14, 2013; amended September 29, 2022] 2022 Advisory Committee’s Note to LR 72.2 The language of LR 72.2(a)(3) has been amended to standardize the practice in the District with regard to review of a magistrate judge’s ruling on a motion to amend a pleading. LR 72.2(a)(3)(B) makes clear that when a motion to amend a pleading is opposed on grounds of futility, which invokes the standard applied to motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the district judge will review de novo the magistrate judge’s determination as to whether the proposed amendment would be futile. The substance of the remainder of LR 72.2(a)(3) is unchanged. 2013 Advisory Committee’s Note to LR 72.2 The language of LR 72.2 has been amended in accordance with the restyling process described in the 2012 Advisory Committee’s Preface on Stylistic Amendments. In particular, the language of LR 72.2 has been revised to align more closely with the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and material that was redundant of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 has been deleted. These deletions are not intended to have any substantive effect. Former subsection (c) was deleted and the rule was renumbered accordingly. 2012 Advisory Committee’s Note to LR 72.2 Technical amendments were made to LR 72.2 in light of changes made to LR 7.1. Specifically, all cross-references to LR 7.1 were eliminated, and a new subsection (d) was added to LR 72.2 to clarify that the format and filing requirements in LR 72.2 apply to objections and responses to objections filed under this rule in all cases, whether civil or criminal. 2005 Advisory Committee’s Note to LR 72.1 and LR 72.2 This Rule was substantially restructured in 2005 to accommodate various changes made over the years to the Magistrate Judge Act, Title 28 United States Code, Section 636 and to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72 and 73. The Rule contemplates that the duties described in Local Rule 72.1. a. will be automatically exercised by the Magistrate Judge in every case to which he or she is assigned without any further direction or reference by the District Court Judge. In any individual case, pursuant to Local Rule 72.1 b, the District Judge to whom the case is assigned may also designate a Magistrate Judge to perform any of the other duties described in the Magistrate Judge Act. The Court and the Committee intend that these duties include the full range of duties permitted by the Act, Title 28 United States Code, Section 636, and may include but are not limited to: Serving as a special master; taking a jury verdict in the absence of the District Judge; conducting hearings and submitting to the District Judge assigned to the case proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of dispositive pretrial motions in civil cases; receiving grand jury returns pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(f); issuing writs or other process necessary to obtain the presence of parties or witnesses or evidence needed for Court proceedings; and performing any other additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States @ Title 28 United States Code, Section 636(b)(3). 1991 Advisory Committee’s Note to LR 72.1(b)(2) and LR 72.1(c)(2) The Advisory Committee does not intend to require or encourage the filing of briefs accompanying objections to decisions by the Magistrate Judges. Ordinarily, the briefs submitted to the Magistrate Judge are sufficient for the district Judge to decide on objections. However, this rule gives the objecting party the option of filing a brief when the objecting party believes that special circumstances justify doing so. The time period for appeal under LR 72.1(b) runs from the “entry of the Magistrate Judge’s order”. The time period for objecting under LR 72.1(c) runs from “being served with” a copy of the findings, recommendations, or report of the Magistrate Judge. This difference in language appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), so the committee reluctantly preserved this distinction in the local rules. This rule applies to objections to decision of Magistrate Judges under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. It does not affect practice in appeals from trials by consent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 73-75. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 75(c), which provides time lines for filing briefs in proceedings on appeal from Magistrate Judges to district Judges under Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(d).

Provenance

Source: www.mnd.uscourts.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-18
Edition: fed-district-2026-09-18
Content hash: 2f3596b587c431c92050ccbefd1b9b7ce08e8e3faec4149ff7f429aa71f38d38

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs