NIBLACK v. MIGLIO et al
LETTER ORDER/OPINION denying 14 Appeal Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 8/16/2016. (seb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARTIN LUTHER KING
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
STEVEN C. MANNION
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 16, 2016
D.E. 15, Reconsideration of Application for Appointment
of Pro Bono Counsel
Niblack v. Miglio et al
Civil Action No. 16-cv-747 (MCA)(SCM)
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff, Stanley Niblack’s (“Mr.
Niblack”) a) Appeal of Denial of Application for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel,1 and b) his reply
to the State’s opposition to his informal motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel.2 Mr. Niblack
complains that the Court decided the motion without providing him time to submit a reply, and
requests that “the Court … reconsider” his circumstances.3
The Court has reviewed the parties’ pleadings, Mr. Niblack’s Application, the opposition, and
now his reply to the opposition.4 Mr. Niblack’s application and reply claims a medical impairment,
but those allegations have not been supported with competent medical evidence. Conversely,
defendants submitted a declaration from Dr. Ralph Woodward, M.D. who reviewed Mr. Niblack’s
medical record and stated, “The medical record does not state nor provide any medical reasons to
(ECF Docket Entry No. (“D.E.”) 14).
(D.E. 14, Appeal at 2).
(D.E. 15, Pl. Reply).
(D.E. 1, 8, 10, 15).
support Niblack's claim that he cannot or should not write or type nor does the clinician instruct Mr.
Niblack to stop writing.” 5 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s July 13, 2016
Order/Opinion6 and the reasons set forth herein, the Application is denied without prejudice.
8/16/2016 4:27:31 PM
c (via ECF):
c (via U.S. Mail R.R.R.):
Stanley L. Niblack, #923038A/769213
South Woods State Prison
215 South Burlington Road
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
(D.E. 10, Df. Opposition, Exh. B ¶ 3).
(D.E. 12, Opinion).
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?