Vaughan v. Sposato et al

Filing 132

ORDER denying 92 Motion to Compel seeking default judgment. SO ORDERED that upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Lindsay's June 19,2012 and July 5, 2012 orders and plaintiffs "Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 55(b)(2)," (Doc. No. 92), which the Court construes to be objections to Magistrate Judge Lindsay's June 19, 2012 and July 5, 2012 orders, plaintiffs objections are overruled and his motion is denied. CM to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 9/16/2013. (Florio, Lisa)

•

,.'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------~X
HASAN VAUGHAN,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
-against-

CV-ll-3097(SJF)(ARL)

MICHAEL SPOSATO, Nassau County Correctional
Center Acting Sheriff, OFFICER HUES, OFFICER
BOlD, OFFICER HARVEY, OFFICER KAHL,
OFFICER VEGA, OFFICER HARDY, CORPORAL
ANDERSON, CORRECTIONS OFFICER LANE,
CORRECTIONS OFFICER GELD ERMAN, and
NASSAU COUNTY,

FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U S DISTRICT COURT E D N Y

*

s.~i' 1 6 2013

*

LONG ISLAND OFFICE

Defendants.

~~~~~~---------------------·X
FEUERSTEIN, J.

Pending before this Court is the motion of prose plaintiff Hasan Vaughan ("plaintiff')
entitled "Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 55(b)(2)," (Doc. No.
92), which the Court construes to be objections to: (1) a pretrial order of the Honorable Arlene
Rosario Lindsay, United States Magistrate Judge, dated June 19, 2012, denying plaintiffs
application to enter a default judgment against defendants based on their failure to obey a January
30,2012 Scheduling Order; and (2) Magistrate Judge Lindsay's July 5, 2012 Scheduling Order.
For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs objections are overruled and the motion is denied.

I.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(!)(A) permits a district judge to "designate a magistrate judge to hear
1

and determine any [nondispositive] pretrial matter," not otherwise expressly excluded therein.
Any party may serve and file objections to a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive pretrial
matter within fourteen (14) days after service of such order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Upon
consideration of any timely interposed objections and "reconsider[ation]" of the magistrate
judge's order, 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(l)(A), the district judge must modify or set aside any part of
the order that "is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A
party may not assign as error any defect in a magistrate judge's order to which he or she has not
timely objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

B.

Objections

Plaintiff contends, inter alia, that Magistrate Judge Lindsay: (I) abused her discretion and
exceeded her authority in construing his application seeking her "intervention to 'advise' the
County Defendants that failing to obey [her] Scheduling Orders may result in a default judgment
in favor of the plaintiff," (Mot., at p. 4, 'If 6), as an application seeking the entry of a default
judgment against the County Defendants; and (2) abused her discretion in issuing the new
Scheduling Order on July 5, 2012.
Plaintiffs objections were filed more than fourteen (14) days after Magistrate Judge
Lindsay's June 19,2012 and July 5, 2012 orders were served with notice of entry and, thus, are
denied as untimely. In any event, Magistrate Judge Lindsay's June 19,2012 and July 5, 2012
orders are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

2

•

II.

CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Lindsay's June 19,2012 and July 5, 2012 orders

and plaintiffs "Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 55(b)(2),"
(Doc. No. 92), which the Court construes to be objections to Magistrate Judge Lindsay's June 19,
2012 and July 5, 2012 orders, plaintiffs objections are overruled and his motion is denied.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein
SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN
United States District Judge

Dated: September 16, 20 13
Central Islip, New York

3