Actually, there are. They certainly exist in the Federal Court System. See at:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx
"Q: What are federal magistrate judges?
A U.S. magistrate judge is a judicial officer of the district court and is appointed by majority vote of the active district judges of the court to exercise jurisdiction over matters assigned by statute as well as those delegated by the district judges. The number of magistrate judge positions is determined by the Judicial Conference of the United States, based on recommendations of the respective district courts, the judicial councils of the circuits, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years. Duties assigned to magistrate judges by district court judges may vary considerably from court to court."
In other words, they are judges with limited powers less than those provided by Article III of the Constitution.
While Magistrate Judges are quite real, what our foreign scammer fiends (meant literally and not as a misspelling of the word "friends") say about them is often so dumb as to elicit uncontrollable spasms of laughter.
Actually Nonie I have to correct you on that. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has elected magistrate judges that preside over small claims court and take care of summary matters as well as preliminary hearings and set bail. They have elected Constables that transport prisoners, serve some warrants, and also serve court papers.
➡️ The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has elected magistrate judges that preside over small claims court and take care of summary matters as well as preliminary hearings and set bail. ⬅️
There are certainly state magistrate judges, as well. My response was not meant to exclude them, but rather to indicate that there are judges known as magistrate judges in the United States by pointing out an example. If your hypothesis is that the set of all Xs is the empty set, a proof sufficient to show that the hypothesis is false is by showing any single member of the set X.
But if you unexpectedly happen to meet one tiger in the forest, you have to admit to the possibility of there being hundreds out there hiding from you!
Well as long as we are not using fuzzy math, that set of hypothesis will be ok. Now as to the tiger, if I meet one in the forest, I won't have time to admit anything but that I am about to be dinner.