Filing 47

MEMORANDUM/ORDER denying 39 Appeal Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court and the Order of Magistrate Judge Clark (ECF no. 37) is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 12/14/16. (DD, ) N/M

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IVAN G. MCKINNEY, Civ. No. 14-3564 (KIvI) Plaintiff, V. Dr. HEMSLEY, et al., : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants. Plaintiff, Ivan G. McKinney, appeals from an Order of Magistrate Judge James B. Clark, Ill, denying his application for appointment ofpro bono counsel. This, one of many civil rights actions Mr. McKinney has pending in this district, primarily involves allegations regarding the quality of medical care and other grievances arising from his former incarceration at Bergen County Jail. The District Court will reverse a Magistrate Judge’s decision on a non-dispositive motion only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(i)(A). Where the appeal seeks review of a matter within the discretion of the Magistrate Judge, an abuse of discretion standard is appropriate. See Cooper Hospital/Univ. Med. Ctr. i’. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D. 119, 127 (D.N.J. 1998); Deluccia v. City ofPaterson, No. 09-703, 2012 WL 909548, at * 1 (D.N.J. March 15, 2012). “This deferential standard is especially appropriate where the Magistrate Judge has managed this case from the outset and developed a thorough knowledge of the proceedings.” Lithuanian Commerce Corp., Ltd. v. Sara Lee Hosiery, 177 F.R.D. 205, 214 (D.N.J. l997)(internal quotations omitted); see Deluccia, 2012 WL 909548, at *1 (same). Judge Clark’s Order (ECF no. 37) properly invokes the applicable legal standard under Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993). Appointment ofpro bono counsel is a discretionary decision that will depend on the circumstances and the progress of the individual case. Judge Clark noted that I had denied an earlier request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal, “depending on the development of the claims and the facts in the pretrial discovery process.” (Order at 2, quoting ECF no. 5 at 18) Discovery remains in its early stages. It seemed to Judge Clark, and I agree, that the situation had not changed sufficiently to dictate appointment of counsel at this time. Among other things, it is still difficult or impossible to make even a preliminary assessment of the merits. Accordingly, IT IS this 14th day of December, 2016, ORDERED that the appeal (ECF no. 39) is DENIED, and the Order of Magistrate Judge Clark (ECF no. 37) is AFFIRMED, for the reasons expressed in that Order. KEVIN MCNULTY United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?