STILE v. SOMERSET COUNTY et al

Filing 544

ORDER AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 496 , overruling 505 Objection By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAMES STILE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOMERSET COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-00248-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 16, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an
order, Decision and Order on Pending Mots. (ECF No. 496), in which he denied
various motions by James Stile. Mot. for Subpoena of Docs. (ECF No. 430);
Mot. for Extension of Time for Pl. to Examine Video Exs. Recently Provided in
Summ. J. Mot. as Said Videos Have Been Altered from the Original Format
that was Provided in Disc. (ECF No. 452); Mot. to Amend Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 15 and Rule 19 (ECF No. 455); Mot. to Reopen Disc. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (ECF No. 461). Mr. Stile filed objections to the order on
March 6, 2018.

Pl.’s Obj. to the Magistrate’s Decision and Order Dated

February 16, 2018 (ECF No. 505) (Pl.’s Obj.). Defendants, except Somerset
County, Delong, Allen, Mayhew, Welch, Jacques, Plourd, and Kline, filed their
response to Mr. Stile’s objections on March 16, 2018. Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Obj.
to the Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order Dated February 16, 2018 (ECF
No. 513). On March 20, 2018, Defendant David Allen responded to Mr. Stile’s

objections. Def. David Allen’s Resp. to Pl.’s Obj. to Decision and Order (ECF
No. 521).
The Magistrate Judge’s order is on a non-dispositive matter, therefore
the Court reviews the order to determine whether it is either “contrary to law”
or “clearly erroneous.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). The Court determines that it is
neither, and the Court need not elaborate on the Magistrate Judge’s wellreasoned order.
The Court notes that in his objection, Mr. Stile’s claims: (1) not to
possess certain video exhibits; and (2) not to be able to view other video exhibits
that he does possess, Pl.’s Obj. at 2-4, 7-8 (ECF No. 505). However, neither
issue was the subject of the motions on which the Magistrate Judge ruled,
leading to this order. The Magistrate Judge is addressing these issues on a
parallel track, and in the Court’s view, these issues are more efficiently
resolved there. See Order (ECF No. 531); Letter from Attorney Cassandra
Shaffer (ECF No. 533); Letter from Attorney Kasia Park (ECF No. 534).
1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Order of the Magistrate Judge
(ECF No. 496) is hereby AFFIRMED.
2. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate’s
Decision and Order Dated February 16, 2018 (ECF No. 505) be and
hereby is OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

Dated this 21st day of May, 2018

3