Guillory v. Boll et al

Filing 43

ORDER REJECTING 42 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Patrick Guillory and DENYING 40 Letter Motion from Patrick Guillory llory requesting that Magistrate Judge Peebles be removed from this action.. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 6/1/2013. [pltf served via regular mail](bjw, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________________
PATRICK GUILLORY,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:12-CV-1771
(FJS/DEP)

MAUREEN BOLL, Deputy Commissioner and Counsel,
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision;
and B. JOHNSTON, Lieutenant, Bare Hill Correctional
Facility,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

PATRICK GUILLORY
09-B-0714
Upstate Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Malone, New York 12953
Plaintiff pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants

DOUGLAS J. GOGLIA, AAG
KELLY L. MUNKWITZ, AAG

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
On June 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for recusal, see Dkt. No. 39, and a letter motion
requesting that this Court remove Magistrate Judge Peebles from this action, see Dkt. No. 40. In
a Text Order dated June 4, 2013, Magistrate Judge Peebles denied Plaintiff's motion for recusal
and explained, in great detail, the nature of and reason for the Court's communication with the

Attorney General's office. See Dkt. No. 41. On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed an appeal from
Magistrate Judge Peebles' Text Order. See Dkt. No. 42.
The Court has reviewed the entire record in this matter and has carefully considered
Plaintiff's accusations regarding the basis for the Court's communication with the Attorney
General's office and concludes that Magistrate Judge Peebles did not engage in or instruct court
personnel to engage in any improper ex parte communications with the Attorney General's
Office. To the contrary, given the procedural nature of this communication, Magistrate Judge
Peebles handled this situation appropriately and in accordance with this Court's practice.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiff's appeal from Magistrate Judge Peebles' June 4, 2013 Text Order
is REJECTED and that Text Order denying Plaintiff's motion for recusal, see Dkt. No. 39, is
AFFIRMED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's letter motion requesting that this Court remove Magistrate
Judge Peebles from this action, see Dkt. No. 40, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2013
Syracuse, New York

-2-