and the records of inferior courts.” United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n. 5 (11th Cir.1987). And the court may do . so at any stage of the proceeding. See Fed. R.Evid. 201(c). Moreover, that appellants did not disclose in their bankruptcy filings the claims they assert in the instant case cannot be disputed. Appellants’ second argument is that the magistrate judge’s orders are null and void because the district court did not explicitly refer the case to the magistrate judge and they did not consent to the magistrate judge’s exercise of jurisdiction. The argument fails. First, consent is not required for magistrate judge actions taken in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See Jeffrey S. By Ernest S. v. State Bd. Of Educ. Of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 511-12 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Second, § 636(b)(1) does not require a
holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error holding that failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue on appeal holding that by blindly adopting the magistrate judges findings apparently without ever having received a report and recommendation the district court violated  636b1 holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation holding that magistrate judge could without consent of parties hold a pretrial hearing and issue a report and recommendation based on the findings made