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)

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