Brown v. Tuttle

Filing 76

RULING ON MULTIPLE MOTIONS: denying as moot 48 Motion for Extension of Time; denying without prejudice to renewal 59 Motion for Order; denying without prejudice to renewal 60 Motion for Order; denying without prejudice to renewal 61 Motion for Order; granting 64 Motion for Protective Order; denying without prejudice to renewal 65 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting absent objection 67 Motion to Supplement Appeal on Dismissed Claims; denying 72 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 11/6/2014. (Watson, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
---------------------------------------------x
:
KENYA BROWN
:
:
v.
:
:
J. TUTTLE, DMD
:
---------------------------------------------x

3:13 CV 1444 (JBA)

DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2014

RULING ON MULTIPLE MOTIONS (Dkts. ##48, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 67 & 72)
On October 1, 2013, the pro se plaintiff, who was then incarcerated at MacDougallWalker Correctional Institution,1 filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Eighth,
Fourteenth, and First Amendment violations by defendant J. Tuttle, a dentist who treated
plaintiff. (Dkt. #1). Familiarity with this Court's multiple previous rulings is presumed. (See
Dkts. ##8, 14, 29, 53). Currently, plaintiff has thirteen pending motions, seven of which will
be addressed in this Ruling.2 This Ruling will also address defendant's pending Motion for
Protective Order. These motions were referred to this Magistrate Judge on October 8, 2014.
(See Dkt. #73).
I. DISCUSSION
A. DISCOVERY MOTIONS (Dkts. ##59, 60, 61, 64)
On August 18, 2014, plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Order Seeking Deposition
1

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution.

2

Pending before United States District Judge Janet Bond Arterton is plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. #38), and Motion for Order on Objection (Dkt. #39), in which motions
plaintiff asserts that he did file a timely objection to the Recommended Ruling (see Dkt. #11), and
then filed an objection to Judge Arterton's Order (Dkt. #27) approving and adopting this Magistrate
Judge's Recommended Ruling on plaintiff's Motion to Proceed and/or Commence Action (Dkt. #8).
Also pending before Judge Arterton is plaintiff's Motion for Scheduling Order (Dkt. #36),
Motion for Pretrial Conference (Dkt. #37), Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #62), and Motion
for Leave to File Excess Pages (Dkt. #63).

by Written Question in which plaintiff seeks to depose three non-party employees of UConn
Managed Health Care, namely, Linda Reicher, DMD, Donald Amaro, DMD, and Nurse
Supervisor Erin Nolin. (Dkt. #59). On September 12, 2014, defendant filed her pending
Motion for Protective Order in which she moves this Court to issue a protective order to
protect these three non-parties "from having to respond to affidavits as a form of discovery
in this case[]" in light of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on September 5,
2014. (Dkt. #64). In light of plaintiff's pending Motion for Summary Judgment , defendant's
Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #64) is granted and plaintiff's Motion for Order Seeking
Deposition by Written Question (Dkt. #59) is denied without prejudice to renewal after a
decision on his dispositive motion.
Plaintiff's additional discovery motions, namely, his Motion for Affidavit (Dkt. #60),
filed on August 20, 2014, in which plaintiff seeks an affidavit from non-party witness Steven
Swan, who is the Grievance Coordinator at Corrigan C.I., and his Motion for Order to Produce
for Depositions Arlena Duffy and Steven Swan (Dkt. #61) are denied without prejudice to
renewal after a decision on his dispositive motion.
B. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT (Dkt. #65) AND PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION (Dkt. #72)
On September 16, 2014, plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Supplement the
Pleadings, in which Motion he seeks to amend his Complaint to add that his First Amendment
rights were violated in retaliation for plaintiff's filing of a grievance which arose out of the
original allegations in his Complaint. (Dkt. #65). On September 25, 2014, defendant filed
her objection to plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. #69), pointing out that plaintiff filed his Motion for
Summary Judgment eleven days prior to the filing of this pending motion, and further
observing that this Court has previously denied plaintiff's earlier attempts to amend his

2

Complaint, without prejudice to renewal after a ruling on his pending objections to Judge
Arterton's Ruling approving and adopting this Magistrate Judge's Recommended Ruling in
which, inter alia, plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed. (Id. at 3-6; see
also Dkts. ##8, 27, 53). On October 6, 2014, plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's
Objections to Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Pleadings. (Dkt. #72). In accord with this
Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Multiple Motions, filed on July 30, 2014, plaintiff's Motion to
Supplement Complaint (Dkt. #65) is denied without prejudice to renewal after a ruling on
plaintiff's pending objections, and plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Dkt. #72) is denied.
C. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT APPEAL ON DISMISSED CLAIMS (Dkt.
#67)
On September 24, 2014, plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement Appeal on Dismissed
Claims (Dkt. #67), in which Motion he seeks to add to his objections, filed on May 5 and 6,
2014 (Dkts. ##38-39) to Judge Arterton's Ruling approving and adopting the Recommended
Ruling of dismissal of plaintiff's claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, filed on
April 11, 2014. (Dkt. #27). Specifically, plaintiff contends that he has evidence of his First
Amendment retaliation claims and he seeks to use such evidence in support of his pending
objections. (Dkt. #67). Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. #67) is granted absent objection.
D. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Dkt. #48)
On July 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for
Summary Judgment in which he sought 120 days after a ruling on his Motion to Amend his
Complaint.

(Dkt. #48).

However, on September 5, 2014, plaintiff filed a Motion for

Summary Judgment in which he seeks summary judgment "on all counts of [his] complaint."
(Dkt. #62). Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. #48) is denied as moot.
II. CONCLUSION

3

For the reasons stated above,
plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #48) is denied as moot;
plaintiff's Motion for Order Seeking Deposition by Written Question (Dkt. #59) is
denied without prejudice to renewal;
plaintiff's Motion for Affidavit (Dkt. #60) is denied without prejudice to renewal;
plaintiff's Motion for Order (Dkt. #61) is denied without prejudice to renewal;
defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #64) is granted;
plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Complaint (Dkt. #65) is denied without prejudice to
renewal after a ruling on plaintiff's pending objections;
plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Appeal on Dismissed Claims (Dkt. #67) is granted
absent objection; and
plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Dkt. #72) is denied.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within
fourteen days after service of same); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72; Rule 72.2 of the
Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut; Small v. Secretary, H&HS, 892 F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure to file
timely objection to Magistrate Judge’s recommended ruling may preclude further
appeal to Second Circuit); Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 603-05 (2d Cir.
2008)(failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge’s discovery ruling will
preclude further appeal to Second Circuit).

4

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 6th day of November, 2014.

/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge

5