Murray v. Tanea et al

Filing 135

DECISION AND ORDER William J. Murray's appeal 134 of Magistrate Judge Pedersen's Orders 130 133 is denied in all respects. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 9/6/2022. (KAH)This was mailed to: Plaintiff William J. Murray.

Case 6:16-cv-06525-DGL-MJP Document 135 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
WILLIAM J. MURRAY,
Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER
16-CV-6525L

v.
TOM TANEA, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen has been directed to supervise discovery
in this case and he entered two Orders, Dkt. #130 and #133. The plaintiff, William J. Murray
(“Murray”), has filed a pro se motion appealing those Orders (Dkt. #134). Murry appeals pro se
but he has an attorney, who was appointed, pro bono, for the limited purpose of completing
email-related discovery.
I have reviewed Murray’s appeal and find no basis to alter or modify Magistrate Judge
Pedersen’s Orders. It is clear that when one is represented by an attorney, a court is not required
to entertain pro se motions filed by the party. Such hybrid proceedings are not permitted.
The standard for reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s orders is whether that order was “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Magistrate Judge Pedersen’s Orders
are correct and proper and, therefore, not “clearly erroneous.”

Case 6:16-cv-06525-DGL-MJP Document 135 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, William J. Murray’s appeal (Dkt. #134) of Magistrate Judge
Pedersen’s Orders (Dkt. # 130, #133) is DENIED IN ALL RESPECTS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Rochester, New York
September 6, 2022.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge

2