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)

Download PDF
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argument is without merit, see Caidor v. Onodaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 605 (2d Cir. 2008), and his argument concerning unpublished cases has no bearing on whether Judge Roemer’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.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

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?