Woodward v. Afify et al

Filing 118

DECISION AND ORDER affirming Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer's Decision and Order 87 . This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Roemer for further proceedings. A copy of the Decision and Order, along with this docket entry, have 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 8/25/17. (LAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHAWN WOODWARD,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
14-CV-856A

v.
MUSLIM CHAPLAIN AFIFY; OFFICER
RAFFTY; OFFICER T. SEWALT; OFFICER
CORSI; OFFICER OTTO; SENIOR
COUNSELOR LIVERMORE; OFFICER
ACKERMAN; P. CHAPPIUS; SARGEMT
KRAUSE,

Defendants.

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On March 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roemer filed an Order
(Dkt. No. 87) finding that the defendants have fully complied with his January 23, 2017
Decision and Order, which instructed the defendants to file additional submissions in
response to plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery (Dkt. Nos. 53 and 63). The plaintiff
has now filed an objection to Judge Roemer’s Order. Dkt. No. 92.
A magistrate judge’s non-dispositive orders, such as the one at issue here, “may
[be] reconsider[ed] . . . where it has been shown that the . . . order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). See also Sealed Plaintiff No. 1 v. Sealed
Defendant No. 1, 221 F.R.D. 367, 368 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Magistrate judges are given
broad discretion with respect to discovery disputes which should not be overruled
absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”) Upon such review, and after reviewing

the record and the submissions from the parties, the Court affirms Judge Roemer’s
Order.
In addition, the plaintiff’s procedural argument is without merit, see Caidor v.
Onodaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 605 (2d Cir. 2008), and his argument concerning unpublished cases has no bearing on whether Judge Roemer’s decision was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Roemer for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Richard J. Arcara______________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: August 25, 2017