Woodward v. Afify et al

Filing 96

DECISION AND ORDER: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer filed a Decision and Order 73 on January 23, 2017. The Plaintiff appealed this Decision and Order 79 . For the reasons outlined in the attached Decision and Order, the Court affirms Judge Roemer's Order, and this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Roemer for further proceedings. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 4/25/17. (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 January 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roemer filed a Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 73) granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery (Dkt. Nos. 53 and 63) and for subpoenas duces tecum (Dkt. No. 52). In addition, Magistrate Judge Roemer denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. The plaintiff has appealed Judge Roemer’s Decision and Order. Dkt. No. 79. A magistrate judge’s non-dispositive orders, such as those 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 submissions from the parties, the Court affirms Judge Roemer’s Order. The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Roemer for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. ____Richard J. Arcara____________ HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Dated: April 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?