PALADINO v. NEWSOME et al

Filing 107

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 6/20/2014. (kas, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Brian PALADINO,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 12-2021
v.
OPINION
Kevin NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants.

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon Brian Paladino’s appeal of Magistrate Judge
Bongiovanni’s denial of his motion to compel. Defendants Lanigan, Warren, Crothers, Gerdes,
Nellson, and Holder oppose Paladino’s appeal. (Docket No. 103). The Court has decided the
matter upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions and without oral argument,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
denies Paladino’s motion.
II. BACKGROUND

Brian Paladino (“Plaintiff”) an inmate currently incarcerated at New Jersey State Prison
within the New Jersey Department of Corrections commenced this action by filing a civil rights
complaint on April 4, 2012. (Docket No. 1). The Court issued an Opinion and Order on August
13, 2012 dismissing the following claims: the lack of opportunity to earn good time credits; First

Amendment denial of free exercise claim; First Amendment access to the courts claim; Fourth
Amendment cell search claim; and the deprivation of property claim. (Docket No. 5). The Court
allowed the excessive force, conditions of confinement, inadequate medical care, and equal
protection claims to go forward. (Id.).
On January 4, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining claims.
(Docket No. 45). On June 27, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’
motion. (Docket No. 58). As a result, the only claims which remain are Plaintiff’s conditions of
confinement and equal protection claims regarding his allegations of inadequate soap, toilet
paper, recreation, exercise, and writing materials.
On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed what is captioned as a “motion to compel
production and impose Rule 37 sanctions.” (Docket No. 98). On April 14, 2014, Judge
Bongiovanni issued a letter order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion. (Docket
No. 100). Specifically, Judge Bongiovanni denied the production of documents not related to
inadequate soap, toilet paper, recreation, exercise, and writing materials. (Id.).
On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed an appeal of Judge Bongiovanni’s letter order. (Docket
No. 102).
III. ANALYSIS
In considering an appeal of a nondispositive order by a magistrate judge, the court will
modify or vacate an order only if it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); L. Civ. R. 72.1(c). A magistrate judge’s finding is clearly erroneous when, after
considering the entirety of the evidence, the reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Employers Mut. Liab.
Ins. Co., 131 F.R.D. 63, 65 (D.N.J. 1990). A ruling is contrary to law if the magistrate judge has

misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law. Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 32 F.Supp.2d
162, 164 (D.N.J. 1998). The burden of showing that a ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to
law rests with the party filing the appeal.” Marks v. Struble, 347 F.Supp.2d 136, 149 (D.N.J.
2004).
Here, Plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling
was “clearly erroneous.” In his appeal, Plaintiff claims the ruling should be set aside to “avoid
manifest injustice;” however, Plaintiff’s appeal fails to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s
ruling was the result of a misapplication of law or erroneous. (Docket Nos. 102, 104).
Therefore, the Court will affirm the order of the Magistrate Judge.

/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

Date: 6/20/14