Moustapha v. The Metropolitan Correctional Center et al

Filing 111

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION for 107 Report and Recommendations: The Report is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff's application for an order to show cause, a preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order, and an order directing defend ants to post security is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff's application shall be construed instead as an application for expedited discovery and defendants are ordered to submit their responses by January 31, 2013, if they have not so already. ( Responses due by 1/31/2013.) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 12/27/2012) (lmb)

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
RLECfRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
, DATE FILED: J ~ - ~1-- \ d-..

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----x
MOUSTAPHA MAGASSOUBA,

08 Ci v. 4 560

( LAP) (HBP )

Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendant.

--- -- -- -- --

-----x

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge:
aintiff Moustapha Magassouba ("

aintiff") brought

this action pro se against the United States of America
(the "United States" or the "Government")

i

federal prison

official defendants James N. Cross, former Warden of the
Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) , and MCC Corrections
Officers Armando Perlaza and Donnell Scott (together with
Cross, the "Federal Defendants")

i

and inmate defendants

Goldson Hugh, Thomas Garfield, and Barris Larry (the
"Inmate Defendants") .
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's request
submitted on or about November 30, 2012 that the Court
order defendants to show cause on or before December 18,
2012
Why an order should not be issued pursuant to
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
enj oining the defendant during the pendency of
this action from delaying discoveries
[sic],
1

testimonYt hearing, trial, documents, involving
the Officer Perlaza,
failure to protect the
Plaintiff from being injured by three Inmates
which took place on May 25, 2008 at MCC New York;
and enjoining defendants Goldson Hugh, and Thomas
Garfield from filing any pleading or otherwise
defense
[sic]
because
the default
has
been
entered under Rule SSt Fed.R.Civ.P.
Plaintiff also seeks a temporary restraining order
preventing the Federal Defendants from delaying discovery
and an order directing the Federal Defendants to post
security so that he can finance his litigation.
On December 4

t

2012

t

Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman

filed his Report and Recommendation (the "Reporttt)

[dkt.

no. 107] finding that Plaintiff's application for an order
to show cause t a preliminary injunction t a temporary
restraining order, and an order directing defendants to
post security should denied in all respects.

(Report at 4.)

Judge Pitman further deemed Plaintiff's "submission to be
an application for expedited discoverylt and ordered
defendants to submit their response no later than
December 14, 2012.
After reviewing the Report as well as Plaintiffts
Opposition and Objection to the Report and Recommendation
[dkt. no. 110] and finding Judge Pitmants analysis to be
correct and appropriate upon de novo review t see
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)

t

the Report is hereby adopted.

2

As Judge

Pitman correctly recognizes, the order to show cause and
the substantive relief sought by Plaintiff are either
inappropriate vehicles at this stage of the litigation or,
as in the case of Plaintiff's request for the posting of
security, beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

In light

of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court further endorses
the Report's construing of Plaintiff's submission as an
application for expedited discovery.

Defendants are thus

i «af~ J

11.

ordered to submit their response bY~..J, r' If
they have not done so already.
CONCLUSION
The Report is hereby ADOPTED.

Plaintiff's application

for an order to show cause, a preliminary injunction, a
temporary restraining order, and an order directing
defendants to post security is hereby DENIED.

Plaintiff's

application shall be construed instead as an application
for expedited discovery and defendants are ordered to
submit their responses

by,~3f.~~,

if they have not

so already.

",-I!
a,

SO ORDERED.
n
Dated: December

2012

LORETTA A. PRESKA
Chief U.S. District Judge

3