Woodward v. Afify et al

Filing 104

ORDER: For the reasons in the attached Order, plaintiff's 103 Motion for Leave to Appeal is denied. A copy of the Order has been mailed to Shawn Woodward, 00-A-6563, LIVINGSTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Box 91, Sonyea, NY 14556. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 7/13/17. (LAS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ SHAWN WOODWARD, Plaintiff, v. 14-CV-856-RJA-MJR ORDER AFIFY, et al., Defendants. _________________________________ On April 25, 2017, the Court affirmed Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer’s Decision and Order, which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery and for subpoenas duces tecum. See Docket No. 96. Plaintiff has since filed a motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal from the Court’s April 25th Decision and Order. See Docket No. 103. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Section 1292(b) states that, “[w]hen a district judge . . . shall be of the opinion that [an interlocutory order] involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing.” The court of appeals may, then, “in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order.” Id. Plaintiff has not shown, nor is it apparent, how either of § 1292(b)’s requirements is satisfied in this case. Indeed, because “discovery orders are generally collateral in nature, they will rarely satisfy these requirements.” In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied. 1 SO ORDERED. Dated: July 13, 2017 Buffalo, New York _s/Richard J. Arcara____________ HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?